Sec 408

An agreement by which a trustee or director of a corporate body gives his influence for a particular candidate in exchange for a benefit received by himself, is void.4 And of offices in which the public is interested, the appointing power cannot make a valid sale. " Public policy requires that there shall be no money consideration for the appointment to an office in which the public are interested; the public will be better served by having persons best qualified to fill offices appointed to them; but if money be given to those who appoint, it may be a temptation to them to appoint improper persons."5 - An agreement by a trustee of a mining corporation to resign his trust for money is void.6 "Trustees of corporations owe duties to others besides themselves; they have been placed in a position of trust by the stockholders, and to those stockholders they must be faithful. It is a violation of the trust for them to be bought out of office."7 - Specific performance will not be granted of a contract for the purpose of obtaining control of a national bank.1 - "A director of a corporation cannot make for himself, or for his own benefit, a contract that will bind the company. The contract may be repudiated by the company at the instance of a stockholder."2 - An agreement to grant diplomas on any ground except merit is void.3 - "All arrangements by directors of a railroad company," also, " to secure an undue advantage to themselves at its expense, . . . are so many unlawful devices to enrich themselves to the detriment of the stockholders and creditors of the original company, and will be condemned whenever properly brought before the courts for consideration."4 An agreement, therefore, by an officer of a railroad corporation to use his influence to locate the road in a particular line, is invalid.5

So of sales of trusts.

1 See as to legislative compromises, supra, sec 402. In Bolton v. Madden, L. R. 9 Q. B. 55, an agreement by subscribers to a charity to vote for the same candidate for aid was sustained.

In Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nev. 175, an agreement between A. and B. by which A., in consideration of B.'s services in obtaining A.'s election as district attorney, was to divide the salary and emoluments with him, was held invalid.

2 Hunter v. Nolf, 71 Penn. St. 282; Benedict v. Ehler, Lewis Cr. L. 126;.

Martin v. Wade, 37 Cal. 168. See Gray v. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449.

3 Waldron v. Evans, 1 Dak. Ter. 11.

4 Wardell v. R. R., 103 U. S. 656.

5 Blachford v. Preston, 8 T. R. 89. See, however, Bolton v. Madden, L. R. 9 Q. B. 55; supra, sec 407.

6 Forbes v. McDonald, 54 Cal. 99.

7 Ibid., Myrick, J. See to same general effect; Miller's Appeal, 30 Penn. St. 478; Bowers v. Bowers, 26 Penn. St. 74.

Sec 409

An administrator being a public officer, an agreement by which he is to give any undue preferences is void. This has been held to be the case with a contract by an administrator to sell the real estate of his intestate on certain terms, and then to make title through the orphans' court;6 and with an agreement to assume a debt on condition of the plaintiff relinquishing his right to letters of administration in favor of the defendant.7