Sec 404

When there is a board of pardons before whom counsel appear, or when there is a hearing before an executive, there is no reason why counsel should not present a case for consideration, and be properly paid for their services.3 On the other hand, a contract whose consideration is the obtaining a pardon from a governor cannot be enforced.4 It is otherwise with a contract for professional services in presenting and arguing a case before the executive.6

Sec 405

While an agreement with a sheriff or other public officer of the same class to indemnify him in a service of writs for the purpose of determining questions of title will be sustained,6 it is otherwise when the object is to induce him to do an illegal act, or to neglect his duty. Such agreements constitute indictable offences, and are in themselves void;1 and so of bonds which an officer takes of a prisoner in consideration of an illegal indulgence amounting to an escape;2 and of agreements to pay officers commissioned to take testimony for prematurely divulgiug the testimony;3 and of agreements to pay public officers for doing their duty.4 A note, however, accepted by an officer from a person charged with a revenue offence to save his property from attachment is not based on an invalid consideration.5 And, as has already been incidentally seen, bonds given to a public officer to indemnify him for an illegal act may be enforced when the bonds did not operate as inducements to violate the law, and were not illegal in their inception, but were bonafide meant to remunerate him for expenses incurred by him in a mistaken view of duty. The seal in such cases makes it unnecessary to prove consideration.6 An indemnity to a private person may, under the same circumstances, be sustained.7

Professional services as to pardons permissible.

Agreements to influence public officers void.

1 See Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 235.

2 See criticism in Pollock, 3d ed. 289, 291 et seq.; Egerton v. Earl Brown-low, 4 H. L. C. 1-250.

3 See Bird v. Meadows, 25 Ga. 251.

4 Hatzfleld v. Gulden, 7 Watts, 152; Filson v. Himes, 5 Barr, 492; Bowman v. Coffrath, 59 Penn. St. 23; Haines v. Lewis, 54 Iowa, 301.

5 Chadwick v. Knox, 11 Foster, N. H. 226, and other cases cited Wald's.

Pollock, 286. That a contract by the mayor of a city to lease a public park, and for an annual sum to keep it in repair, is void, see Macon v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221.

6 See Grett v. Close, 16 East, 293; Clark v. Foxcroft, 6 Greenl. 296; Connelly v. Walker, 45 Penn. St. 449; March v. Gold, 2 Pick. 285; Foster v. Clark, 19 Pick. 329; Com. v. Vandyke, 57 Penn. St. 34.

Sec 406

Independent of local statutes an agreement corruptly to influence votes at a popular election is invalid. Hence it has been held that a promise that a voter should be remunerated for time lost by him in attending the polls cannot be enforced;1 and so of a promise to pay him for money spent by him in travelling.2 An agreement to pay money in consideration of abandoning an election petition has also been held invalid.3 And it has been held that a promise to aid in the election of another cannot be made the subject of a suit.4 Nor can a promise to pay for treating a candidate's supporters.5

And so of agreement to bribe voters.

1 Hodsdon v. Wilkins, 7 Greenl. 113; Denny v. Lincoln, 5 Mass. 385; Churchill v. Perkins, 5 Mass. 541; Doty v. Wilson, 14 Johns. 381; Webber v. Blunt, 19 Wend. 188; Devlin v. Brady, 36 N. Y. 531; Richardson v Crandall, 48 N. Y. 328; Satterlee v. Jones, 3 Duer, 102; Fanshot v. Stout, 1 South. 319; Newsom v. Thighen, 30 Miss. 44. In Ray v. Mackin, 100 111. 246, an agreement between contractors to make collusive bids and pool profits was held void, see infra, sec 443.

2 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1667; Colby v. Sampson, 5 Mass. 310; Churchill v. Perkins, 5 Mass. 541; Fanshot v. Stout, 1 South. 319; Green v. Hern, 2 Pen. & W. 167; Hopkinson v. Leeds, 78 Penn.

St. 396; Kenworthy v. Stringer, 27 Ind. 498.

3 Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 12.

4 Infra, sec 502; Gallagher v. Hallett, 1 Caines, 104; Gilmore v. Lewis, 12 Ohio, 281; Odineal v. Barry, 24 Miss. 9.

5 Pilkington v. Green, 2 B. & P. 151. See Stonington v. Powers, 37 Conn. 439.

6 Story Cont. (Bigelow's ed.), sec 707; Drake on Attach. sec 189; Hall v. Hun-toon, 17 Vt. 244; Marsh v. Gold, 2 Pick. 285; Avery v. Halsey, 14 Pick. 174 Coventry v. Barton, 17 Johns. 142 McCartney v. Shepard, 21 Mo. 573.

7 Stone v. Hooker, 9 Cow. 154.