“It is said that the object of all law is to suppress vice, and to promote the general welfare of society, and it does not give its assistance to persons to enforce a demand originating in their breach or violation of its principles and enactments. It is not necessary that the law expressly prohibit or enjoin an act. It may impliedly prohibit or enjoin it. In either case a contract in violation of its principles is void under the wholesome maxim _ex turpi causa non oritur actio_. “It may happen, and, indeed, frequently does happen, that the individual suffers great hurt from this sweeping policy of the law, but it is held that the good of the commonwealth rises above the mere benefit of the individual citizen, and that where the welfare of the whole of society is involved, the law will not pause to consider the injury entailed upon the mere unit. Hence the policy of government in the exigencies of war, when protection must be had against violence, and the policy of government in the peaceful administration of the law, when protection must be had against vice. “Thus gambling, wagering, and all gambling and wagering contracts and transactions are illegal as against public policy, since they are repugnant to the well-being of society, fraught with vice, pregnant with demoralization, and corrupting alike to the youth and to the aged, as they inspire a hope of reward without labor. “It is significant that in matters of this nature human society has been progressive. Under the common law of England wagers were not unlawful or unenforceable, but the statute of 9th Anne followed and altered the common law, and the statutes of 8th and 9th Victoria altered it yet farther, and in the United States every separate Commonwealth has its respective statute striking at this vice. “I think it will not at this day be denied that all transactions in stocks, by way of margin, settlement of differences, and payment of gains or losses, without intending to deliver the stocks, is a gambling or wagering operation which the law does not sanction, and will not carry into effect; and it has been held in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Irwin vs. Williar, 'If under the guise of a contract to deliver goods at a future day the real intent be to speculate in the rise or fall of prices, and the goods are not to be delivered, but one party is to pay to the other the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date fixed for executing the contract, the whole transaction is nothing more than a wager, and is null and void.' And that 'Generally in this country wagering contracts are held to be illegal and void as against public policy.'