It is no defence to an action for work done and materials furnished in fitting up a barroom, that the plaintiff knew the premises were to be used for the illegal sale of liquor.
BLODGETT, J.
The plaintiff is not precluded from a recovery of the value of his labor and materials upon the bar and the room containing it by his knowledge that the defendant intended to use them for an unlawful purpose. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Delavina v. Hill, 65 N.H. 94. See, in addition, Tracy v. Talmage, 14 N.Y. 162, — 67 Am. Dec. 132, and note; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Me. 210, — 1 Am. St. Rep. 301, and note; Michael v. Bacon, 49 Mo. 474, — 8 Am. Rep. 138, and note; Webber v. Donnelly, 33 Mich. 469; Hubbard v. Moore, 24 La. An. 591, — 13 Am. Rep. 128; Mahood v. Tealza, 26 La. An. 108, — 21 Am. Rep. 546.
Exception overruled.
CHASE, J., did not sit: the others concurred.