4^8 FEDJBBAL BEPOBTEE. �And se» the foUowing cases cited and approved by Justice Strong in his opinion : Faïkney v. Reynolds, 4 Burrows, 66, (2069;) Petrie v. Hannay, 3 Term, 418, 419; Lestapies v. Ligraham, 5 Barr, 71; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wh'eat, 258; McBlair y. Gibbes, 17 How. 232, 236; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70. �In Brooks v. Martin it was held, upon full consideration, that after a partnership transaction, confessedly in violation of an act of congress, bas been carried out, a partner in whose hands the profits are cannot refuse to account for and divide them on the ground of the illegal character of the original contraet. AU of these cases admit the invalidity of a contract bottomed in immorality or in a violation of a statute, and they ail agree that where a party cornes into court and asks relief upon such a contract it must be denied. But they make a distinction between those cases in which a court is a,sked to enforce such a contract, and those in which a court is asked to deal with proper^y whieh bas been acquired as the resuit of the execution thereof . Such property may eonstitute thegSubject-matter of a suit at law or in equity, notwithstand- ingithe invalidity of the contract under which it was, acquired. Applying this doctrine to the case in hand, we find, accordr ing to the allegations of the amended bill, that besides the pjroperty acquired by plaintiff from the United States Tele- graph Company (and which beoame and is a part of the line) the plaintiff bas expended upon said line over one bundred thousand dollars in excess of the contributions lûade by the railway eompany under the contract. �The fact seems to be that, by expenditures made by the plaintiff, and by contributions from the railway eompany, the line bas been constructed, reconstruoted, and maintained. If the contract were set aside it would, I think, leave the par- ties joint owners of the property, and a case for equity juris- diction, in the adjustment and settlement of their respective interests, would be presented. �3. I reserve for further consideration hereafter the question of the effect of the paroi agreement set out in the amended ����
