A contract is illegal and void on the ground of maintenance where a stranger to a cause of action agrees to sustain the expense of prosecuting or defending it.42

Illustrations of maintenance are where a stranger to a cause of action induces the person who has the right of action to sue by promising to save him harmless from any liability for costs, or to pay the costs in case of failure in the action.43 It has generally been deemed necessary, in order to avoid a contract, that there should be something vexatious in the maintenance, and that mere assistance was not enough; that maintenance "is confined to cases where a man improperly, and for the purpose of stirring up litigation and strife, encourages others either to bring actions or to make defenses which they have no right to make." 44 This is probably the general rule in this country where the doctrine of maintenance is recognized at all.45

Pac. 999. In New York it is abolished, except in so far as it is embodied in statutes in reference to certain cases affecting the title to lands, and prohibiting the purchase of claims by attorneys for the purpose of suing on them. See Bundy v. Newton, 65 Hun, 619, 19 N. Y. Supp. 734; Fowler v. Callan, 102 N. Y, 395, 7 N. E. 169; Coughlin v. Railroad Co., 71 N. Y. 443, 27 Am. Rep. 75; Oisher v. Lazzarone, 61 Hun, 623, 15 N. Y. Supp. 933. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9; Cent. Dig. § 21.

38 Breeden v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 220 Mo. 327, 119 S. W. 576. And see Smits v. Hogan, 35 Wash. 290, 77 Pac. 390, 1 Ann. Cas. 297. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-10.

39 Findon v. Parker, 11 Mees. & W. 675. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-10.

40 Smits v. Hogan, 35 Wash. 290, 77 Pac. 390, 1 Ann. Cas. 297. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-10.

41THOMPSON v. REYNOLDS, 73 I11. 11, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 254; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51, 27 Am. Rep. 314, in which it is said, per Henry, J.: "The race of intermeddlers and busybodies is not extinct. It was never confined to Great Britain, and the little band of refugees who landed from the Mayflower on the coast of New England were not entirely free from the vice of intermeddling in the concerns of other people. It is as prevalent a vice in the United States as it ever was in England and we do not see but that a law restraining intermeddlers from stirring up strife and litigation betwixt their neighbors is wholesome and necessary, even in Missouri." See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 1-3; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-10.

42 Hutley v. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112; Kerr v. Brunton, 24 U. C. Q. B. 390; Knox v. Martin, 8 N. H. 154. And see the cases in the following notes. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

It is not maintenance for a person to assist another in litigation, if he is himself interested in the subject of the litigation,48 or if he in good faith believes that he is so interested,47 or if he is a near relative of the litigant;48 nor, it seems, for a person to assist one who has a good cause of action, and is too poor to sue.49 He must assist, however, because of such interest or relationship.50

43 Wheeler v. Pounds, 24 Ala. 472; Low v. Hutchinson, 37 Me. 196; Martin v. Amos, 35 N. C. 201. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

44 Findon v. Parker, 11 Mees. & W. 682. Cf. Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, 11 Q. B. Div. 10. See "Champerty and Maintenance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

45 See Perine v. Dunn, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. T.) 508; Thallhimer v. Brincker-hoff, 3 Cow. (N. T.) 623, 15 Am. Dec. 308; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51, 27 Am. Rep. 314; McCall's Adm'r v. Capehart, 20 Ala. 521; Com. v. Dupuy, Brightly, N. P. (Pa.) 44. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

46Williams v. Fowle, 132 Mass. 385; Knight v. Sawin, 6 Greenl. (Me.) 361; Inhabitants of Industry v. Inhabitants of Starks, 65 Me. 167; Hutley v. Hut-ley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112; Board of Com'rs of Bartholomew County v. Jameson, 86 Ind. 154; Cooley v. Osborne, 50 Iowa. 526; Breeden v. Frankfort Marine, Accident & Plate Glass Ins. Co., 220 Mo. 327, 119 S. W. 576. It is not maintenance for several to contribute to the expense of a suit by one where all have a common interest in settling the question as to defendant's liability. Davies v. Stowell, 78 Wis. 334, 47 N. W. 370, 10 L. R. A. 190. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

47Lewis v. Broun, 3G W. Va. 1, 14 S. E. 444; Wellington v. Kelly, 84 N. Y. 543; Findon v. Parker, 11 Mees. & W. 679. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

48Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 623, 15 Am. Dec. 308; Gille-land v. Failing, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 308; Morris v. Henderson, 37 Miss. 492; Walker v. Perryman, 23 Ga. 309, at page 316; Jahn v. Champagne Lumber Co. (C. C.) 157 Fed. 407. See Graham v. McReynolds, 90 Tenn. 673, 18 S. W. 272. But see Barnes v. Strong, 54 N. C. 100; Hutley v. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

49Dunne v. Herrick, 37 I11. App. 180. See "Champerty and Maintenance," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. §§ 4-19.

50 Greenh. Pub. Pol. p. 401.