
    William Lowey, Resp’t, v. The Granite State Provident Association, App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 7, 1894.)
    
    Contract—Validity.
    Any contract, which is repugnant to, or contravenes, a statute of the state, is unlawful and cannot be enforced.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the district court in the city of New York for the first judicial district, rendered by the justice thereof, without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff. The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion,
    
      Jonathan C. Ross, for app’lt; Wakeman & Campbell, for resp’t.
   Giegerich, J.

This action was brought against the defendant, a foreign building and loan association, to recover the agreed, compensation for selling shares of stock of the defendant company. The defense was á general denial. Judgment was given the plaintiff for the full amount he claimed, from which the defendant- has appealed. By the plaintiff’s own testimony it appears that some of the sales upon which he seeks to recover commissions were made during the periods in which the defendant company was not allowed to do business in this state. It is conceded that the sale of shares of stock in such corporations was prohibited by § 9, chap. 146 of the Laws of 1890. The plaintiff boasts that they nevertheless continued the business and “ used to beat the devil around the bush.” But however adroit his work in thus evading or violating our laws may have been, he can hardly expect the court to reward him for it. Any contract which is repugnant to, or contravenes, a statute of -the state is unlawful and cannot be enforced. Excelsior Grain Binder Co. v. Stayner, 25 Hun, 91, and cases cited; Bilordeaux v. Bencke Lithographic Co., 16 Daly, 78; 30 St. Rep. 656; Honegger v. Wettstein, 94 N. Y. 252, 260; Story v. Cube State Bank, 18 Weekly Dig. 269. No claim is made that this contract was illegal at its inception ; but, upon the principle of the above cases, no recovery can be allowed for sales made subsequent to April 21st, 1890, on which day the abovecited statute went into effect. Since the evidence on the part of the plaintiff as to the date of some of the sales'is vague or conflicting, the judgment cannot be modified, but should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the events.

Bischoff, P. J.: I concur. See also Dowley v. Schiffer, 36 St. Rep. 869; 13 N. Y. Supp. 552.  