It is generally true that the legality of contracts is to be determined by the law of the place where they are made; ánd, if legal there, they are usually'enforced everywhere. It was upon this ground that contracts for the sale of intoxicating liquors made in other States, where such sales were legal, were enforced in the Courts of this State, although such contracts if made here, would have been held illegal. Torrey v. Corliss, 33 Maine, 333.
But this rule is not obligatory. When contracts made in other States are designed or calculated to aid in violating the laws of the State where they are attempted to be enforced, the Courts of the latter State are not obliged to furnish a remedy. • And, when it was seen that the liquor dealers of other States were abusing the principles of comity extended to them, and by sending runners into the State soliciting orders, and by every species of artifice in packing, directing and forwarding their liquors, were aiding and promoting an illegal traffic in this State, it was not only competent, but wise in our Legislature to pass a law declaring that they should receive no aid from our Courts in collecting pay for their liquors.
This was done in 1851, c. 211, § 16. And our present liquor law, (Act of 1858', c. 33, § 27,) declares that no action shall be maintained for intoxicating liquors purchased out of the State with intention to sell the same or any part thereof in violation of said Act.
In the case now before us, the plaintiffs are endeavoring to recover a balance alleged to be due them for intoxicating liquors purchased by the defendants, with the intention of selling the same in this State in violation of the provisions of said Act. Their claim, therefore, would seem to be one ■which the Courts of this State are expressly forbidden to enforce.
But the plaintiffs contend that, inasmuch as the sale was
-On the bill introduced in evidence by the plaintiffs is a charge of fifty cents for cartage. All the rest of the account is for intoxicating liquors. We do not understand that the plaintiffs claim to recover for this item as for a separate and independent claim. If we understand their argument, it is referred to only to show that the liquors were delivered and the sale completed in New York. Besides, as there is only a single count in the plaintiffs’ writ, and that is for " balance of account,” and no bill of items is annexed, they are in no condition to claim to recover for a single item of their account. But a single promise is averred, and that is to pay the balance due on their account. In such a case, if any portion of the account is illegal, the plaintiff cannot recover. In fact, if a promissory note had been given for the balance, no part of it could be recovered. Deering v. Chapman, 22 Maine, 488. If a party has an account made up of