Mrs. Waitee Lusk, joined by her husband, O. B. Lusk, brought this suit against Montgomery Ward & Co. to recovеr compensation for certain services performed by her for the defendant. She alleged that she was a female, and was in the dеfendant’s employment as a clerk in its store in the city of Hillsboro from August 17, 1929, to October 5, 1930, and that during said time she worked a total of 202 hours overtime, or more than 9 hours pier clay. She alleged that the defendant agreed to pay her for such overtime, but that it failed and refused to do sо. She sued to recover the value of her services for such ovеrtime. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs for the sum of $101. The defendant appealed.
Our Penal Code, article 1569, provides as follows:
“No female shall be employed:
“1. In any factory, mine, mill, workshop, mechаnical or mercantile establishment, hotel, restaurant, rooming housе, theater, moving picture show, barber shop, telegraph, telephone or other office, express or transportation cоmpany, or any State institution, or any other establishment, institution or enterprise where females are employed, for more than nine hours in any one calendar day nor more than fifty-four hours in any one calendar week.” See Revised Statutes, article 5168.
The plaintiffs’ pleadings and evidence show that Mrs. Lusk entered into a contract with the defendant by which it employed her to work in a mercantile establishment for more than 9 hours per day in violation of the above statute. The contract between Mrs. Lusk and the defendant by which she was to work such overtime and receive pay therefor was illegal.' She here seeks to enforce such illegal contract. The rule is well established that a сourt will not enforce an illegal contract, and when the illegality of the contract sued upon appears, it is the duty of the court to at once decline to enforce it. 10 Tex. Jur. 183; 6 R. C. L. 692; 13 C. J. 410; Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass'n v. Tаbor (Tex. Com. App.)
It is true that Penal Code, article 1572, which' imposes а penalty on the employer for a violation of the above act, does not fix any penalty on the employee for a viоlation thereof. However, this is not material. The act prohibiting the employment of females for more than 9 hours per day is not intended for the protection of the employee only. It is in the nature of a state police regulation, and is intended for the protectiоn of the public health and the perpetuation of the human race, and is therefore for the benefit of the public generally. Birkett v. Chatterton, 13 R. I. 299,
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is here rendered that the plaintiffs take nothing.