Champerty, or the maintenance of a suit for a share of the proceeds, avoids an agreement made in contemplation of it.51 A frequent instance of champerty is where an attorney agrees to conduct litigation, and pay the costs, in consideration of a certain part of whatever he may recover. Most of the courts hold such an agreement illegal.52 Some courts have held that the champertor need not carry on the suit at his own expense, and that any contract is champertous in which an attorney agrees to conduct a suit for a compensation contingent on success;53 but the weight of authority is to the contrary.54

An agreement is not champertous, however, which provides for the payment to the attorney of a sum equal to a certain portion of the amount recovered.55 And it has been said that "where the right to compensation is not confined to an interest in the thing recovered, but gives a right of action against the party, though pledging the avails of the suit, or part of them, as security for the payment, the agreement is not champertous." 56 So an agreement by an attorney to prosecute or defend a suit is not champertous, if he has an interest in the suit aside from that acquired by the agreement 57 In this case he is not an intermeddler.

51 Gilbert v. Holmes, 64 I11. 548; Coleman v. Billings, 89 I11. 183; Munday v. Whissenhunt, 90 N. C. 458; Slade v. Rhodes, 22 N. C. 24; Barnes v. Strong, 54 N. C. 100; Thompson v. Warren, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 488; Hayney v. Coyne. 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 339; Jenkins v. Bradford, 59 Ala. 400; Martin v. Veeder, 20 Wis. 466; Barker v. Barker, 14 Wis. 131; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51, 27 Am. Rep. 314; Stanley v. Jones, 7 Bing. 369; Sprye v. Porter, 7 El. & Bl. 81. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

52THOMPSON v. REYNOLDS, 73 I11. 11, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 254; Holloway v. Lowe, 7 Port. (Ala.) 488; Coughlin v. Railroad Co., 71 N. Y. 443, 27 Am. Rep. 75; Lancy v. Havender, 146 Mass. 615, 16 N. E. 464; Boardman v. Thompson. 25 Iowa, 487; Evans v. Bell, 6 Dana (Ky.) 479; Million v. Ohnsorg, 10 Mo. App. 432; Scobey v. Ross, 13 Ind. 117; Lafferty v. Jelley, 22 Ind. 471; Hamilton v. Gray, 67 Vt 233, 31 Atl. 315, 48 Am. St. Rep. 811; Geer v. Frank, 179 I11. 570, 53 N. E. 965, 45' L. R. A. 110; In re Evans, 22 Utah, 366, 62 Pac. 913, 53 L. R. A. 952, 83 Am. St. Rep. 794; Casserleigh v. Wood, 119 Fed. 308, 56 C. C. A. 212. It has even been held that, where the attorney has received money under such an agreement for his client, the latter cannot maintain an action to recover it Best v. Strong, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 319, 20 Am. Dec. 607. Contra, Ackert v. Barker, 131 Mass. 436; Stearns v. Felker, 28 Wis. 594. A contract whereby the client is bound not to settle without the consent of theattorney is void. Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806, 64 Am. St Rep. 456; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 I11. 100, 49 N. E. 222, 44 L. R. A. 177; Davis v. Webber, 66 Ark. 190, 49 S. W. 822, 45 L. R. A. 196, 74 Am. St. Rep. 81; Davis v. Chase, 159 Ind. 242, 64 N E. 88, 853, 95 Am. St. Rep. 294. See, also, Potter v. Mining Co., 22 Utah, 273, 61 Pac. 999. In Iowa a contract for a part of the sum recovered is not void, unless the client is forbidden to settle the claim. Barthell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 138 Iowa, 6S8, 116 N. W. 813. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

53Lathrop v. President, etc., 9 Metc. (Mass.) 489; Ackert v. Barker, 131 Mass. 436. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

54 Aultman v. Waddle, 40 Kan. 195, 19 Pac. 730; Phillips v. Commissioners, 119 I11. 626, 10 N. E. 230; Winslow v. Railway Co., 71 Iowa, 197, 32 N. W. 330; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362, 50 N. E. 924; Brush v. City of Carbondale, 229 I11. 144, 82 N. E. 252, 11 Ann. Cas. 121; Whinery v. Brown, 36 Ind. App. 276, 75 N. E. 605. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

A less obvious form of champerty is in the case of a purchase out and out of a right of action. The validity of such an agreement would depend on whether the purchase included any substantial interest beyond a mere right to litigate. If property is bought to which a right to sue attaches, that fact will not avoid the contract,58 but an agreement to purchase a bare right to sue would not be sustained.59 "It is not unlawful to purchase an interest in property, though adverse claims exist which make litigation necessary for realizing that interest, but it is unlawful to purchase an interest merely for the purpose of litigation; in other words, the sale of an interest to which a right to sue is incident is good, but the sale of a mere right to sue is bad." 60

55 Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. Hall, 147 Ky. 598, 144's. W. 760; Sparling v. United States Sugar Co., 136 Wis. 509, 117 N. W. 1055. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

56 Blaisdell v. Ahern, 144 Mass. 393, 11 N. E. 681, 59 Am. Rep. 99. See, also, McPherson v. Cox, 96 U. S. 404, 24 L. Ed. 746; Hadlock v. Brooks, 178 Mass. 425, 59 N. E. 1009. Contra, Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806, 64 Am. St. Rep. 456. The rules governing champerty are not applicable to the prosecution of a claim otherwise than by suit. Manning v. Sprague, 148 Mass. 18, 18 N. E. 673, 1 L. R. A. 516, 12 Am. St. Rep. 508 (court of commissioners of Alabama claims). See, also, Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 983; Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 3 Sup. Ct. 441, 28 L. Ed. 64. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

57 Smith v. Hartsell, 150 N. C. 71, 63 S. R 172, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 203. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

58Dickinson v. Burrell, 1 Eq. 337, 342. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. §§ 5-8.

59Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Tounge & C. 499; Norton v. Tuttle, 60 I11. 130; Brush v. Sweet, 38 Mich. 574; Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Speyer, 138 I11. 137, 27 N. E. 931; Storrs v. Hospital, 180 I11. 368, 54 N. E. 185, 72 Am. St. Rep. 211; Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 20 Wis. 174, 88 Am. Dec. 740; Archer v. Freeman, 124 Cal. 528, 57 Pac. 474; Haseltine v. Smith, 154 Mo. 404, 55 S. W. 633; Miles v. Association, 108 Wis. 421, 84 N. W. 159. See Greenhood, Pub. Pol. pp. 409-411. Conveyance of land held adversely by another. Smith v. Price (Ky.) 7 S. W. 918; Combs v. McQuinn (Ky.) 9 S. W. 495; Nelson v. Brush, 22 Fla. 374; Snyder v. Church, 70 Hun, 428, 24 N. Y. Supp. 337. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 6; Cent. Dig. §§ 5-8.

As we have stated above, it is not regarded as maintenance for a near relative to assist a person in litigation. This rule, however, does not apply to champerty. Not even a relative can assist for a share of the recovery. "Lineal kinship in the first degree, or apparent heirship, and to a certain extent, it seems, any degree of kindred or affinity, or the relation of master and servant, may justify acts which, as between strangers, would be maintenance; but blood relationship will not justify champerty." 61

It should be noted that the defense of champerty or maintenance cannot be set up to defeat a recovery on the cause of action to which the illegal agreement relates. It can only be set up against the enforcement of the illegal agreement itself.62

In some jurisdictions, the rule prevails that, although the contract of an attorney is void for champerty, he may recover upon a quantum meruit the reasonable value of his services.68 Upon principle, however, and by the weight of authority, if the contract is itself void for champerty, there can be no recovery upon a quantum meruit or otherwise for the services rendered in pursuance of the contract.64 As to services performed before the making of the

60 Pol. Cont (3d Ed.) 315.

61 Pol. Cont. (3d Ed.) 320; Hutley v. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112; In re Evans, 22 Utah, 366, 62 Pac. 913, 53 L. R. A. 952, 83 Am. St. Rep. 794. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

62 Burnes v. Scott, 117 U. S. 582, 6 Sup. Ct. 865, 29 L. Ed. 991; Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 623, 15 Am. Dec. 308; Boone v. Chiles, 10 Pet. 177, 9 L. Ed. 388; Whitney v. Kirtland, 27 N. J. Eq. 333; Hilton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Eq. 432; Courtright v. Burnes (C. C.) 13 Fed. 317; Pennsyl vania Co. v. Lombardo, 49 Ohio St. 1, 29 N. E. 573, 14 L. R. A. 785; Small v. Railroad Co., 55 Iowa, 583, 8 N. W. 437; Chamberlain v. Grimes, 42 Neb. 701, 60 N. W. 948; Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va. 17, 26 S. E. 557; Potter v. Mining Co., 22 Utah, 273, 61 Pac. 999; Ellis v. Smith, 112 Ga. 480, 37 S. E. 739; Elser v. Village of Gross Point, 223 I11. 230, 79 N. E. 27, 114 Am. St. Rep. 326. Contra, Barker v. Barker, 14 Wis. 131; Allard v. Lamirande, 29 Wis. 502; Heaton v. Dennis, 103 Tenn. 155, 52 S. W. 175; Miles v. Association, 108 Wis. 421, 84 N. W. 159. See, also, The Clara A. Mclntyre (D. C.) 94 Fed. 552 (distinguishing Burnes v. Scott, supra, on ground that here suit was in name of champer-tor to whom note and mortgage had been assigned). See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 4-6; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-51.

63Brush v. City of Carboudale, 229 I11. 144, 82 N. E. 252, 11 Ann. Cas. 121; Stearns v. Felker, 28 Wis. 594. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 24-51.

64 Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 128 Iowa, 533, 104 N. W. 904, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 260, I11 Am. St. Rep. 206; Mazureau & Hennis v. Morgan, 25* La. Ann. 281; Butler v. Legro, 62 N. H. 350, 13 Am. St. Rep. 573; Roller v. Murray, 112 Va. 780, 72 S. E. 665, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1202, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1088 [cit. Clark on Contracts, 1st Ed. § 134], in which it is said, per Buchanan, J.: "To permit