Opinion of the Court. strong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Kinsman v. Parkhurst, 18 How. 289; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507. Nor do we think that the statute of Illinois, 1 Starr & Curtis, Stat. 1885, pp. 791, 792, sections 130, 131, or the case of Pearce v. Foote, 113 Illinois, 228, has any application to the present case. That statute makes it an offence to "corner " the market, or to attempt to do so, and makes void all contracts to reimburse or pay any money or property knowingly lent or advanced at the time and place of any play or bet, to any person gambling or betting. The two banks were not attempting to corner the market in wheat. Whether Wilshire and his confederates were engaged in attempting to do so, and had made purchases for that purpose through Kershaw & Co. as brokers, is another question. This is not a suit by Kershaw & Co. against Wilshire or his firm, or against the Fidelity Bank. It is a suit on a contract made by the Fidelity Bank with the plaintiff; and the receiver cannot defend it on the ground that the plaintiff knew that if it paid over the money to Kershaw & Co., as the Fidelity Bank requested, the money would be used in an illegal transaction. In Pearce v. Foote, supra, Foote made an express agreement with certain commission men to trade exclusively in differences in options, declaring that he did not want to buy any provisions, but simply to speculate and settle on differences. He lost a large sum in such transactions, and endorsed over to the commission men certain notes. The court held that such options were gambling contracts, and that, as the statute of Illinois provided that any person who should lose in a gambling transaction might recover back from the winner whatever he should pay on account of such loss, Foote could recover the value of the notes from the commission men. But the plaintiff is not the winner in any gambling transaction. The purport of the decision in Pearce v. Foote is that, as the commission men participated in the illegal transaction, they could not take the ground that their interest was only that of a commission. The plaintiff is not in the situation of the commission men, and the receiver is not in the situation of Foote. Opinion of the Court. The cases which have been decided in regard to the statute of Illinois arose between brokers and principals, or between winner and loser, and do not apply to the case at bar. It is contended, however, by the receiver that the money advanced by the plaintiff to Kershaw & Co., on the 15th of June, was advanced knowingly at the time in the course of an attempt to corner the market and to aid Kershaw & Co. in doing so. The statute of Illinois makes void any contract "for the reimbursing or paying any money or property knowingly lent or advanced at the time and place of such play or bet to any person or persons so gaming or betting." This is not a suit against Kershaw & Co. to recover money lent to them; nor is it true that the plaintiff advanced money to them to assist them in attempting to corner the market. It is not averred in the answer, nor proved, that Kershaw & Co. were engaged in such an attempt. The averment of the answer is that Harper, Hopkins, Wilshire, and other persons to the defendant unknown, were engaged in such an attempt, and that Kershaw & Co. were acting as brokers; but it is not averred that the brokers had any knowledge of the object of their principals, and the evidence shows that they had no such knowledge. The money which the plaintiff advanced to Kershaw & Co., on the 15th of June, was not lent to them on an agreement by them to repay it; but it was advanced to them in consideration of the deposit with the plaintiff of the $400,000 of Fidelity Bank paper. Nor is there any proof that any of the money paid by the plaintiff to Kershaw & Co., on the 15th of June, was paid out for wheat purchased for Wilshire, Eckert & Co. The burden was on the receiver to show clearly that the money paid out was upon illegal transactions. He fails to do so; and much more does he fail to show that the money was paid for present purchases; that is, in the language of the statute, that it was advanced "at the time and place" of the purchases, and not to pay debts incurred in the making of past purchases. If it were shown that the plaintiff advanced money to Kershaw & Co., on the 15th of June, to be used in paying for wheat which Kershaw & Co. had purchased at some time in the past, in an attempt Opinion of the Court. to corner the market, it would not follow that the plaintiff could not collect from them such advances. Where losses have been made in an illegal transaction a person who lends money to the loser with which to pay the debt can recover the loan, notwithstanding his knowledge of the fact that the money was to be so used. Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Kimbro v. Bullitt, 22 How. 256, 269; Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 500; Tyler v. Carlisle, 79 Maine, 210; McGavock v. Puryear, 6 Coldwell, 34; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Penn. St. 422. It is not shown, as is claimed by the receiver, that in advancing the money to Kershaw & Co. the plaintiff became a participator in an illegal attempt to corner the market, or that it had aided in such an attempt by previously advancing money to them upon a part of the wheat as collateral security. Although the plaintiff had advanced money from time to time to them upon wheat as collateral security, there is no evidence that it knew, or had any reason to suspect, that the wheat was purchased in an attempt to corner the market. An obligation will be enforced, though indirectly connected with an illegal transaction, if it is supported by an independent consideration, so that the plaintiff does not require the aid of the illegal transaction to make out his case. Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258; Faikney v. Reynous, 4 Burrow, 2069; Petrie v. Hannay, 3 T. R. 418; Farmer v. Russell, 1 B. & P. 296; Planters' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483; Mc Blair v. Gibbes, 17 How. 232, 236; Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70; Bly v. Second Nat. Bank, 79 Penn. St. 453. Although the contract between the two banks was made in the State of Illinois, it was to be performed in the State of Ohio; and, the receiver being estopped from saying that Wilshire, Eckert & Co. did not deposit the $200,000 in the Fidelity Bank to the credit of the plaintiff, it is the law of Ohio (Ehrman v. Insurance Co., 35 Ohio St. 324) that he cannot be heard to say that the plaintiff acquired the certificate of deposit in connection with an illegal transaction. The result, however, of the evidence is that it does not appear, as alleged in the answer of the receiver, that the Opinion of the Court. plaintiff had knowledge or notice that the paper in suit was delivered to it to be used through it by Kershaw & Co. in connection with an attempt to corner the market. A detailed discussion of the evidence would not be profitable. We think, therefore, that the Circuit Court was right in making a decree against the receiver in No. 1111. In both of the cases it is claimed that the court erred in adjudging that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the 25 per cent dividend on its claim, from October 31, 1887, until the time the dividend should be paid. As authority the receiver cites the case of White v. Knox, 111 U. S. 784. But we do not think it applies. In that case a judgment was obtained for a claim by White, in June, 1883, which included interest on his claim to that time. While the claim was in litigation, the receiver had paid ratable dividends of 65 per cent to other creditors. After the judgment in favor of White, the Comptroller of the Currency calculated the amount due him as of December 20, 1875, the time when the bank failed, and paid him 65 per cent on that amount. He contended that the dividend should be calculated on his claim with interest to the time of the judgment; but this court sustained the action of the Comptroller. In the present case, the claims of the plaintiff, as allowed, do not include interest beyond the date when the bank failed. Interest upon the dividend which it ought to have received on the 31st of October, 1887, is a different matter. The allowance of that interest is necessary to put the plaintiff on an equality with the other creditors. That point was not decided in White v. Knox; and we think the Circuit Court did not err in allowing such interest. It results that the decrees in both cases must be Affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER did not take any part in the decision of this case. Opinion of the Court. GAGE v. KAUFMAN. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 189. Submitted January 27, 1890. Decided March 3, 1890. - In a bill in equity to quiet title, an allegation that the plaintiff is seized in fee simple is a sufficient allegation that he has the possession as well as the title. In a bill in equity, an allegation that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law is dispensed with by Rule 21 in Equity. A bill in equity to remove a cloud upon title, created by a tax deed, which alleges that no taxes were due upon which the land could be sold, need not offer to pay any taxes as a condition of relief. By the law of Illinois, a tax deed is no more than prima facie evidence in favor of the purchaser, and may be shown to be invalid by proof that there was no advertisement of sale, or no judgment or precept, or no taxes unpaid, or no notice to redeem given or recorded; and a bill to remove a cloud upon title, alleging that the defendant claims under a tax deed valid on its face, but invalid on the grounds aforesaid, is good on demurrer. IN EQUITY. The defendant demurred to the bill. The demurrer being overruled he elected to stand on the demurrer, and a decree was entered for the complainant, from which the defendant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Augustus N. Gage for appellant. Mr. Edward Roby for appellee. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court. This was a bill in equity by a citizen of Illinois against a citizen of New Jersey to remove a cloud upon the title of lands in Chicago of the value of $10,000. The bill alleged that the plaintiff was seized in fee simple of the lands; that the defendant claimed title to them under two pretended tax deeds to him from the county clerk, recorded in the office of the county recorder, (copies of the records of which were set forth in the bill, showing deeds in the form prescribed |