Sec 407

Agreements to pay money to secure public honors,6 or public office, have been held void at common law;7 and so of a sale by a person of his influence to obtain an office for another;8 and a contract to resign for a certain payment.9 As we have already seen, a contract for obtaining by private means the appointment to a public office, is invalid.10 It has been held, also, that a corrupt agreement by two justices, in whom were vested certain county nominations, that A. will vote for B. if C. will vote for D., is a conspiracy at common law.11 And so, it is argued by Judge Curtis, is a similar combination between members of the legislature.12 Without accepting the position that such combinations, when limited to mere legislative compromises, form a criminal offence, it may be argued for several reasons that no suit for their enforcement would stand. (1) Bargains for votes are in themselves invalid. (2) The judiciary cannot, without transcending its functions, undertake to examine the motives of votes of legislators, or to impose damages in case such votes are not given in a particular way.1 - A contract between two candidates for a public office by which one, for a specific consideration, shall withdraw in favor of another, is void.2 And so of a contract by the marshal of a territory to give a subordinate .office as consideration for receiving some private personal services from the appointee.3

So for sale of public offices.

1 Simpson v. Yeend, L. R, 4 Q. B. 626.

2 Cooper v. Slade, 6 E. & B. 447.

3 Coppock v. Bower, 4 M. & W. 361.

4 Nichols v. Mudgett, 32 Vt. 546. See Martin v. Wade, 37 Cal. 168; O'Rear v. Kiger, 10 Leigh, 622.

5 Duke v. Asbee, 11 Ired. 112.

6 Kingston v. Pierrepont, 1 Vera. 5.

7 Blachford v. Preston, 8 T. R. 89; Card v. Hope, 2 B. & C. 661; Richardson v. Mellish, 2 Bing. 236; Thomson v. Thomson, 7 Ves. 470; Waldo v. Martin, 4 B. & C. 319; Hanington v. Du Chatel, 1 Bro. C. C. 124; Carle-ton v. Whitcher, 5 N. H. 196; Cardigan v. Page, 6 N. H. 183; Ferris v. Adams, 23 Vt. 136; Gray v. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449; Filson v. Himes, 5 Barr, 452; Hunter v. Nolf, 71 Penn. St. 282; Duke v. Asbee, 11 Ired. 112; Grant v. McLester, 8 Ga. 553; Lewis v. Knox, 2 Bibb, 453; Outon v. Rodes, 3 Marsh. 433.

8 Garforth v. Fearon, 1 H. Bl. 327; Waldo v. Martin, 4 B. & C. 319; R. v. Charretie, 13 Q. B. 447; Carleton v. Whitcher, 5 N. H. 196; Cardigan v. Page, 6 N. H. 183; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U. S. 108; Boynton v. Hubbard, 7 Mass. 119; Bowers v. Bowers, 26 Penn. St. 74; Stroud v. Smith, 4 Houst. 448; Martin v. Wade, 37 Cal. 168; Gaston v. Drake, 14 Nov. 175. See criticism of cases in Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 516 et seq.

9 Graeme v. Wroughton, 11 Ex. 146; Waldo v. Martin, 4 B. & C. 319; Mea-cham v. Dow, 32 Vt. 721. See Swayze v. Hull, 3 Halst. 54; Ham v. Smith, 87 Penn. St. 63, cited infra, sec 410.

10 Supra, sec 403; Meguire v. Corwine, 101 U. S. 108; Filson v. Himes, 5 Barr, 452; Anon., Lewis Cr. L. 126.

11 Com. v. Callaghan, 2 Va. Ca. 460. 12 Wh. Cr. L. 8th ed. sec 1375.