As stated by Greenhood,39 therefore, "any contract to appoint one to public office,40 or involving the sale of a public41 or quasi pub-

38 Benson v. Bawden, 149 Mich. 5S4, 113 N. W. 20, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 721, In which an agreement by a postmaster to remove the post office to a particular building and maintain it there during his term, for a consideration moving to himself, was held void, because the public interest required the exercise of his best judgment in the location of the office. But where a public institution must be located or structure built, private contributions inuring to the benefit of the government on condition that a particular location is selected are not against public policy. Currier v. United States, 1S4 Fed. 700, 106 C. C. A. 654. See "Contracts;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 181; Cent. Dig. §§ 594-607.

39 Greenh. Pub. Pol. rule 2S7, p. 338.

40 Robertson v. Robinson, 65 Ala. 610, 39 Am. Rep. 17; Hager v. Catlin, 18 Hun (N. Y.) 448; Schneider v. Local Union No. 60, 116 La. 270, 40 South. 700, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 891, 114 Am. St Rep. 549, 7 Ann. Cas. 80S; Stout v. Ennis, 28 Kan. 706. A contract by an officer after election, to employ a person as his deputy may be valid. Stout v. Ennis, supra. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 124; Cent. Dig. §§ 576-585.

41 Hall v. Gavitt, 18 Ind. 390; Card v. Hope, 2 Barn. & C. 661; Proprietors of Cardigan v. Page. 6 N. H. 183; Town of Meredith v. Ladd, 2 N. H. 517; Love v. Buckner, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 506; Groton v. Inhabitants of Waldoborough, 11 Me. 306, 26 Am. Dec. 530; Martin v. Royster, 8 Ark. 74; Outon v. Rodes, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 432, 13 Am. Dec. 193; Engle v. Chipman, 51 Mich. 524, 16 N. W. 886; Alvord v. Collin, 20 Pick. (Mass.) at page 428. The legislic42 office, or to do anything- in consideration of the promisee exchanging office with,43 or securing an office for44 the promisor, or recommending him for such office,45 or resigning any office,46 is void."

As tending to injure the public service may also be mentioned agreements by which a person not occupying a public office secures to himself all or any part of its benefits or emoluments.47 Other agreements to which this principle applies are agreements by a public officer to pay another for performing the duties of his office for him, for an officer has no authority to delegate his duties to another;48 but this does not apply where an officer merely employs a deputy or other private person to assist him.49