This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872 Excerpt: ... on public policy. It is certainly contrary to public policy to give the aid of the courts to a vendor who knew that his goods were purchased, or to a lender who knew that his money was borrowed, for the purpose of being employed in the commission of a criminal act, injurious to society or to any of its members. This is all that we mean to decide in this case JODGMENT REVERSED, AND A NEW TRIAL ORDERED. See the next case. Thomas V. City Of Richmond. 1. Where the issue of bills as a currency (except by banking institutions) is prohibited, a municipal corporation has no power, without express authority, to issue such bills; and if it does issue them, the holders thereof cannot recover tho amount, either in an action on the bills themselves, or for money had and received 2. Especially is this so, where the receiving, as well as issuing, of unlawful bills is expressly prohibited. 8. A law authorizing and requiring the redemption of such bills, passed by tho legislature of one of the late Confederate States in aid of the rebellion, cunnot be recognized or enforced. 4. Semblc, that a bank or other private corporation issuing bills contrary to law, might be compelled to pay the holder in an action for money had and received, although the bills themselves were void, if the receiving of the bills were not expressly prohibited. 5. But if the receiving as well as issuing were prohibited, both parties would be in pari delicto, and no action could be sustained for the amount of the bills. Statement of the case. 8. The law as to the recovery of money paid on an illegal contract stated and defined. Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, on a suit upon certain notes issued during the rebellion by the city corporation of Richmond; the case being thus: A sta...