Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

The complaint is insufficient as the note and mortgage is not pleaded in hsec verba, but is merely attached to the complaint as an exhibit. It should have been expressly made a part of the pleading. {Joseph v. Holt, 37 Cal. 253; Stoddard v. Treadwell, 26 Cal. 302, 303; Boone on Code Pleading, sec. 26, note 2.) Matters of substance, necessary to be alleged in complaint, cannot be omitted and the defect supplied by reference to an exhibit attached to the complaint. (Los Angeles v. Sig-noret, 50 Cal. 298; Burkett v. Griffith, 90 Cal. 541; 25 Am. St. Bep. 151; Brooks v. Paddock, 6 Col. 36; Bowling v. McFarland, 38 Mo. 465; Gebhard v. Gamier, 12 Bush, 325; 23 Am. Rep. 721.) The act of April 1, 1876, is a complete defense to this action, and plaintiff’s demurrer should have been overruled. (Bank of British North America v. Gahn, 79 Cal. 463; Bank of British North America v. Alaska Imp. Co., 97 Cal. 28.) The act of March 9, 1893, did not repeal the act of April 1, 1876, referred to in the title of the later act, as the title of an act is no part of it, and therefore the words “ said act is hereby repealed” are meaningless. (Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 209; Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 210, notes 1-4; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, sec. 58, p. 73, notes a, b, ,p. 74, note 1; Garrigus v. Board of Commrs., 39 Ind. 66; Eastman v. McAlpin, 1 Ga. 157; Bradford v. Jones, 1 Md. 351; Commonwealth v. Slifer, 53 Pa. St. 71; Plummer v. People, 74 Ill. 361; Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 110; Ogden v. Strong, 2 Paine, 584; Brooks v. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 280; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 327, note 7.) The title of an act is never allowed to enlarge or control the language in the body of the act. (Hagar v. Supervisors of Yolo County, 47 Cal. 232; Barnes v. Jones. 51 Cal. 306; Harris v. Supervisors, 52 Cal. 553; 23 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 329.) The taking of the note and mortgage sued upon by the plaintiff was a violation of the provisions of section 578 of the Civil Code, and the note and mortgage were therefore null and void, and no action can be maintained upon same. (Civ. Code, sec. 1667; Gardner v. Tatum, 81 Cal. 373; Swanger v. Mayberry, 59 Cal. 91; Ladda v. Hawley, 57 Cal. 51; Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427.) The plaintiff in this case knew of the violation of law invalidating this note and mortgage, and its remedy is now and always has been against its delinquent president, who as to it is merely a trustee. (Bayley v. Taber, 5. Mass. 286; 4 Am. Dec. 57; Vallett v. Barker, 6 Wend. 615; Richardson v. Crandall, 48 N. Y. 362; Collins v. Blantern, 1 Smith’s Lead. Cas., 9th Am. ed., 668, 669, 675, 685; 5 Lawson’s Bights, Bemedies, and Practice, secs. 2392, 2393; 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 880, 883, 909, 910.) Courts do not decline to enforce contracts of this kind out of any sympathy for the party opposing the enforcement of the contract, hut “ intervene for the sake of the law itself.” (Kreamer v. Earl, 91 Cal. 118; Valentine v. Stewart, 15 Cal. 405; Richardson v. Crandall, 48 N. Y. 362.) In fact the courts in some instances have declined to aid either party, or to take any action where the party seeking the enforcement of the contract was apparently entirely innocent. (Spur-geon v. McElwain, 6 Ohio, 442; 27 Am. Dec. 266; Dillon v. Allen, 46 Iowa, 299; 26 Am. Bep. 145; Conley v. Sims, 71 Ga. 161; Law v. Hodgson, 2 Camp. 147.) The purpose of section 578 of the Civil Code is clearly to protect the general public by securing and guaranteeing the exercise of the greatest amount of sober judgment and sound business sense in the making of loans; and this is the only way in which the rights of depositors can be protected; and any contracts contravening such conditions, in any particular, are null and void, and courts will not enforce tliem. (Miller v. Post, 1 Allen, 434; Smith v. Arnold, 106 Mass. 269; Dolson v. Hope, 7 Kan. 161; Solomon v. Dreschler, 4 Minn. 278; Johnson v. Hidings, 103 Pa. St. 498; 49 Am. Rep. 131; 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 872.)

The complaint was sufficient, as it was enough to attach a copy of the note and mortgage to the complaint without setting them out in full. (Joseph v. Holt, 37 Cal. 253-56.) The act of April 1, 1876, was repealed by the act of March 9, 1893. (See First Nat. Bank v. Henderson, 101 Cal. 307; Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, secs. 58, 59; Myer v. Western Gar Go., 102 U. S. 11; Wilson v. Spaulding, 19 Fed. Rep. 306.) The title of the act could be considered in construing the act. (Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes, secs. 58, 59; Myer v. Western Gar Go , 102 U. S. 11; Wilson v. Spauld-ing, 19 Fed. Rep. 306.) Where the law imposes a penalty upon one class of persons in order to protect another the parties are not in pari delicto, and those intended to be protected can recover money paid in violation of law. (Gray v. Roberts, 2 A. K. Marsh. 208; 12 Am. Dec. 383, and note on p. 385.)