Sec 410

On the same reasoning it has been held that when an election is contested, an agreement by one of the candidates to abandon the contest on the payment of a sum of money, is void.8 And so of an agreement between candidates for the legislature, that one should withdraw in favor of the other.9

So of agreements by administrators to give undue . preferences Agreement to withdraw from contesting election void.

1 Foil's App., 91 Penn. St. 434.

2 Reed, J., Guild v. Parker, 43 N. J. L. 435; citing Field on Corp. sec 175; Green's Brice's Ultra Vires, 2d Am. ed. 477, note a, 479, note a.

3 Olin v. Bate, 98 111. 53.

4 Field, J., Wardell v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 658; citing Great Luxembourg R. R. p. Magney, 25 Beav. 586; Benson v. Hathaway, 1 Y. & C. 326; Flint, etc. R. R. v. Dewey, 14 Mich.

477; European R. R. v. Poor, 59 Me. 277; Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299.

5 Berryman v. R. R., 14 Bush, 755. See infra, sec 414. As to perversions of trusts by trustees, see supra, sec 378.

6 Myers v. Hodges, 2 Watts, 381.

7 Bowers v. Bowers, 26 Penn. St. 74. See Miller's App., 30 Penn. St. 478.

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

9 Ham v. Smith, 87 Penn. St. 63; see supra, sec 407.

Sec 411

When a salary is given for the support of a public officer, a contract by which it is assigned to other parties, is void as against the policy of the law.1 In England, it is true, it has been held that a partnership in the emoluments of permanent patent offices may be valid.2 And a mortgage by an officer of the customs of his interest in the "Customs Benevolent Fund," erected by special act of parliament, has been in England held good.3 But such appointments are in the nature of bounties and not of compensations for specific work.

Sec 412

In England, a pension granted exclusively in consideration of past services is assignable. "But where the pension is granted not exclusively for past services, but as a consideration or retainer for some continuing duty or future service, although the amount of the pension may be influenced by the length of the service which the party has already performed, it is against the policy of the law that it should be assignable."4 In this country, assignments of federal pensions are prohibited by statute, though an agreement to professionally secure a pension for a contingent fee has been sustained.6

Sec 413

A public officer is not entitled to receive payment from individuals for the performance of his public duties, unless in the shape of fees prescribed by law; and when such payments are made to an officer So of assignments of salary.

Otherwise as to pensions.

An agreement by a public officer to vested with discretionary power, they may subject the parties concerned to prosecutions for bribery.1 In any view agreements by individuals to pay public officers specially for their services are generally void as against the policy of the law.2 Hence, a promise to a constable of a reward for executing a warrant of arrest which it was his official duty to execute, is void;3 and so of promises of extra payments to officers in executing criminal process.4 It is otherwise, however, as to extra services, not prohibited by law.5

1 Ryall v. Rowles, 2 Wh. & T. Lead. Cas.. with notes; Pollock, 289; Leake, 2d ed. 727; citing Palmer v. Bute, 2 B. & B. 673 (case of a clerk of the peace); Barwicke v. Reede (that of a military officer); Cooper v. Reilly, 2 Sim. 560; Davis v. Marlborough, 1 Swanst. 74. In Osborne v. Williams, 18 Ves. 379, an agreement to pay over the profits of a contract was held void. In State Bank v. Hastings, 15 Wis. 83, it was held that an unqualified order by a judge, on the treasurer of the state to pay a forthcoming quarter's salary to a bank, bound the maker to a bona fide endorsee for value, though the order was simply for collection, and was given without value. Paine, J., diss. The question of assignability of judicial salaries was not argued, the sole question being held to be whether the order was negotiable.

2 Sterry v. Clifton, 9 C. B. 110.

3 Maclean's Trusts, L. R. 19 Eq. 274.

4 Parke, B., Wells v. Foster, 8 M. & W. 152; Leake, 2d ed. 728, referring to Priddy v. Rose, 3 Mer. 86; Tunstall v. Boothby, 10 Sim. 542; Spooner v. Payne, 4 Ex. 138.

5 Painter p. Drum, 40 Penn. St. 467.