Sec 414

Railroad corporations may be regarded as public institutions, bound, in exercising their franchises, not to be governed by private considerations. In accordance with this view an agreement between individuals and a railroad corporation by which the latter is to build a depot in a particular place in a large city, and to permit no other to be built within a specified distance, has been held void as against public policy;6 and in some states the extreme position is taken that an agreement between a railroad company and individuals, to place, in consideration of payments to it, a depot at a particular spot, is void.7 The same rule has been applied to an agreement not to establish a station within a certain distance of a particular point.8 But notes given to a railway corporation in considereceive private payment for public services is invalid.

Railroad bargains as to stations may be invalid.

1 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1857.

2 Infra, sec 502; Pool v. Boston, 5 Cush. 269; Callaghan v. Hallett, 1 Caines, 104; Tilden v. Mayor, 56 Barb. 340; Walsh v. People, 65 111. 58; Huffman v. Greenwood, 25 Kan. 64; Macon v. Huff, 60 Ga. 221; and cases cited infra, sec 500-2.

3 Smith v. Whildin, 10 Barr, 39; see Commercial Bank v. Pleasants, 6 Whart. 375.

4 See Pool v. Boston, 5 Cush. 219; Gilmore v. Lewis, 12 Ohio, 281; Com. v. Chapman, 1 Va. Cas. 138.

6 Converse v. U. S., 21 How. U. S. 463; Evans v. Trenton, 4 Zab. 764; and cases cited infra, sec 502.

6 Williamson v. R. R., 53 Iowa, 137; see Cedar Rapids Bk. v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402.

7 Fuller v. Dame, 18 Pick. 472; Pacific R. R. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 212; Bestor v. Wathen, 60 111. 138; Marsh v. R. R., 64 111. 414; Holladay v. Patterson, 5 Oregon, 177. In Southard v. R. R., 2 Dutch. 13; Cumberland, etc., R. R. v. Babb, 9 Watts, 458; and Jewett v. R. R., 10 Ind. 539, where actions on such contracts were sustained, the question of illegality was not raised.

8 St. Louis, etc. R. R. v. Mathers, 71 111. 592; St. Joseph, etc. R. R. v. Ryan, 11 Kan. 602.

ration of a promise to construct its road to a given point are not void as against public policy.1 - As we have already seen,2 contracts by railroad directors by which the patronage of their road is to be used for their private advantage, are void.

Sec 415

Since any agreement to obstruct the course of justice is an indictable conspiracy at common law, such agreements are to be regarded as void, and incapable of sustaining a suit;3 and this is the case with agreements for the suppression or perversion of testimony to be used in a judicial proceeding;4 with agreements giving contingent fees to witnesses;5 with secret agreements by particular parties to delay proceedings in a suit to the injury of other parties;6 with agreements to pervert insolvent and bankrupt proceedings as means of fraud;7 with agreements to covertly secure undue indulgences to the debtor;8 and with agreements to suppress a criminal prosecution.9 - That agreements to compound offences are void will be hereafter seen.10 - It may be here noticed that an agreement for the collusive conduct of a divorce suit is void;11 and so is an agreement not to expose immoral c nduct.12

Agreement to obstruct justice void vol. 39; Keir v. Leeman, 6 Q. B. 308; 9 Q. B. 371.

1 Cedar Rapids Bk. v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402; disapproving Holladay v. Patterson, 5 Oregon, 177.

2 Supra, sec 408.

3 See R. v. Hamp, 6 Cox C. C. 167; Dixon v. Olmstead, 9 Vt. 310; State v. Noyes, 25 Vt. 415; Com. v. McLean, 2 Parsons, 367; State v. Norton, 3 Zab. 33; Stoutenburg v. Lybrand, 13 Oh. St. 228; State v. McKistry, 50 Ind. 465; Porter v. Jones, 52 Mo. 399; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo. 389. "There is another remarkable instance of contracts falling under this class, namely, of illegality created by the rules of common law. It consists of contracts void because of having a tendency to obstruct the administration of justice." Smith on Cont. 141, citing Collins v. Blantern, 2 Wils. 341; Unwin v. Leaper, 1 M. & Gr. 747; E. C. L. R.

4 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1334 et seq., sec 1380; Shaw v. Reed, 30 Me. 105; Southern Ex. Co. v. Duffey, 48 Ga. 358; Patterson v. Donner, 48 Cal. 369.

5 Dawkins v. Gill, 10 Ala. 206; Willis v. Peckham, 1 Br. & B. 515; and see infra, sec 500 et seq.; Collins v. Godefroy, 1 B. & Ad. 950; though see Grove v. McCalla, 21 Penn. St. 44.

6 Elliott v. Richardson, L. R. 5 C. P. 744.

7 See supra, sec 379; Caldecott ex parte, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 150.

8 Bracewell v. Williams, L. R. 2 C. P. 196.

9 Barron v. Tucker, 53 Vt. 338. 10 Infra, sec 483 et seq.

11 Hope v. Hope, 8 D. M. G. 731 supra, sec 394.

12 Brown v. Brine, L. R. 1 Ex. D. 5.