Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Agreements-Contrary-To-Public-Policy.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:07:47+00:00

Document:
154. Any agreement which is contrary to the policy of the law, or public policy, because of its mischievous nature or tendency, is illegal and void, though the acts contemplated may not be expressly prohibited either by the common law or by statute.
(a) Agreements tending to injure the public service.
(b) Agreements involving or tending to the corruption of private citizens with reference to public matters.
(c) Agreements tending to pervert or obstruct public justice.
(d) Agreements tending to encourage litigation.
(e) Agreements of immoral tendency.
(g) Agreements tending to induce fraud and breach of trust, (h) Agreements affecting the freedom or security of marriage, or otherwise in derogation of the marriage relation.
(i) Agreements in derogation of the parental relation.
(j) Agreements in unreasonable restraint of trade, including combinations to prevent competition, control prices, and create monopolies.
(k) Agreements exempting a person or corporation from liability for negligence.
There are many things which the law does not prohibit in the sense of attaching penalties, but which are so mischievous in their nature and tendency that, on grounds of public policy, they cannot be admitted as the subject of a valid contract.
403, 112 S. W. 1068, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 876, 130 Am. St. Rep. 897, 16 Ann. Cas. 844. See "Lotteries" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 8; Cent. Dig. § S.
27 Yellowstone Kit v. State, 88 Ala. 196, 7 South. 338, 7 L. R. A. 599, 16 Am. St. Rep. 38; Cross v. People, 18 Colo. 321, 32 Pae. 821, 36 Am. St Rep. 292; .State v. Nebraska Home Co., 66 Neb. 349, 92 N. W. 763, 60 L. R. A. 448, 103 Am. St Rep. 706, 1 Ann. Cas. 88. See "Lotteries," Dec Dig. (Key-No.) § 3; Cent. Dig. § S.
28 Printing & Numerical Registering Co. v. Sampson, L. R. 19 Eq. 462, per Jessel, M. R. And see JAMES QUIRK MILLING CO. v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. L. R. CO., 98 Minn. 22, 107 N. W. 742, 116 Am. St Rep. 336, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 286; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Beazley, 54 Fla. 311, 45 South. 761 (collecting and discussing cases); Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. Ry. v. Cox, 55 Ohio St 497, 45 N. E. 641, 35 L. R. A. 507; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St P. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 91, 20 Sup. Ct 33, 44 L. Ed. 84: McCowen v. Pew, 153 Cal. 735, 96 Pac. 893, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800, 15 Ann. Cas. 630; Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank, 245 I11. 180, 91 N. E. 1041, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1112, 19 Ann. Cas. 127. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 498-511.
29 West Virginia Transp. Co. v. Pipe-Line Co., 22 W. Va. 600, 46 Am. Rep. 627. And see Mumford v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 128 Iowa, 6S5, 104 N. W. 1135. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 498-611.
30 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Bell. 44 Neb. 44, 62 N. W. 314; Picket Pub. Co. v. Carbon County Com'rs, 36 Mont. 188, 92 Pac. 524, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115, 122 Am. St Rep. 352, 12 Ann. Cas. 986. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ .498-511.
31 Egerton v. Earl Brownlow, 4 H. L. Cas. 1, 123, per Parke, B. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 498-411.

References: § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 v. 
 § 108
 v. 
 § 108