Blackstone Bays that a man may "maintain the suit of his near kinsman, servant, or poor neighbor, out of charity and compassion, with impunity." 4 And there seems no doubt that not only the actual payment but a contract for the payment of the expense of another's litigation, is lawful, if the motive is merely charitable.6 Champerty is still, however, obnoxious to the laws of many jurisdictions. It is not confined to attorneys,5a but generally such contracts are made between attorney and client. In England and a few of the United States any contract by an attorney to take as his compensation a share of the proceeds of litigation as such is illegal.6 In most jurisdictions, however, it is allowable for an attorney to make such a contract, unless he also undertakes to carry on the litigation at his own expense. If this additional undertaking is made the whole agreement is unlawful.7 It has been held in some cases that if the agreement provides that the plaintiff shall not compromise or settle the claim the contract, though it otherwise would be valid, is thereby made illegal.8 The technicality of these rules has led some courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to refuse to apply the common-law tests of champerty and maintenance, and to consider merely whether the particular contract in question is oppressive in character, and, if not, to uphold it, though the attorney agreed to bear the expenses of the litigation and contracted for a share of the proceeds.9

4 4 Bl. Comm. 135.

5 Harris v. Brisoo, 17 Q. B. D. 504; Stotsenburg v. Marks, 70 Ind. 103, 106. See also Alabaster v. Harness, [1805] 1 Q. B. 330; Breay v. Royal Assoc., [1807] 2 Ch. 272; Champagne Lumber Co. v. Jahn, 168 Fed. 510, 03 C. C. A. 532. Legal aid societies, the object of which is to enforce the legal rights of others, are tacitly recognised as proper forms of charity.

5a Hutley v. Hutley, L. R. 8 Q. B. 112; Munday v. Whissenhunt, 00 N. C. 458. A contract between the executor and trustee named in a will to contest its probate was held void as champertous in Cochran v. Zachery, 137 Iowa, 585,115 N. W. 486, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 235, 126 Am. St. Rep. 307. See also Lancaster Township v. Graves, 48 Ind. App. 400, 06 N. E. 172; Kelley v. Blanchard, 34 R. I. 57, 82 Atl. 728. Cf. O'Driscoll v. Doyle, 31 Colo. 103, 73 Pac. 27; Finlen v. Heinse, 28 Mont. 548, 73 Pac. 123; and infra, Sec. 1715.

6 In re Attorneys & Solicitors' Act, 1 Ch. D. 573; McConnell v. McConnell,

08 Ark. 103, 136 S. W. 031, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1074 (alimony); Ackert p. Barker, 131 Mass. 436; Blaisdell v. Ahern, 144 Mass. 303,11 N. E. 681, 50 Am. Rep. 00; Joy v. Metcalf, 161 Mass. 514, 37 N. E. 671; Davis v. Commonwealth, 164 Mass. 241, 41 N. E. 292, 30 L. R. A. 743; Gargano v. Pope, 184 Mass. 571, 60 N. E. 343, 100 Am. St. Rep. 575 (cf. Hadlock v. Brooks, 178 Mass. 425, 50 N. E. 1000; Taylor v. Rosenberg, 210 Mass. 113, 106 N. E. 603); Butler v. Legro, 62 N. H. 350, 13 Am. St. Rep. 573. The technical character of this rule is illustrated by the decision in Blaisdell v, Ahern, 144 Mass. 303, 11 N. E. 681, where a con tract between attorney and client con-tained a provision that in view of the uncertainty of the result, the attorneys should be entitled "to very large and liberal fees, in no event to exceed 50% of the amount collected." This contract was upheld although a contract to pay 50% of the amount collected would have been invalid.

7 McPherson v. Cox, 96 U. S.404, 24 L. Ed. 746; Jeffries Admr. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 110 U. S. 305, 28 L. Ed. 156, 4 Sup. Ct. 8; Peck v. Heurich, 167 U. S. 624, 42 L. Ed. 302, 17 Sup. Ct. 927; Muller v. Kelly, 116 Fed. 545 (reVd in 125 Fed. 212, 60 C. C. A. 170, on the ground that under the circumstances the question whether there was any contract, and if so whether it was unconscionable should have been submitted to the jury); Swanston p. Morning Star Mining Co., 13 Fed. 215; Northwestern S. S. Co. v. Cochran, 191 Fed. 146, 111 C. C. A. 626 (Alaska); Wheeler v. Pounds, 24 Ala. 472; Stanton v. Haskin, 1 Mo-Arthur (D. C), 558, 29 Am. Rep. 612; Johnson v. Van Wyck, 4 D. C. App. 294; Moses v. Bagley, 55 Ga. 283; Meeks v. Dewberry, 57 Ga. 263; Taylor v. Hinton, 66 Ga. 743; Johnson v. Hilton, 96 Ga. 577, 23 S. E. 841; Coleman v. Billings, 89 11I. 183; Phillips v. South Park Ins. Com'rs, 119 III 626, 10 N. E. 230; Geer v. Frank, 179 IU. 570, 53 N. E. 965, 45 L. R. A. 110; Coquillard's Adm'r v. Bearss, 21 Ind. 479, 83 Am. Dec. 362; Hart v. State, 120 Ind. 83,21 N. E. 654,24 N. E. 151; Jewel v. Neidy, 61 la. 299, 16 N. W. 141; Wallace v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 112 la. 565, 84 N. W. 662; Donaldson v. Eaton, 136 la. 650, 114 N. W. 19, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1168, 125 Am. St. 275 (but even an agreement by the attorney to pay court costs and advance witnesses' fees was held not to make an agreement champertous if the arrangement was necessary. Clancy v. Kelly, 182 la. 1207, 166 N. W. 583); Atchison, etc., Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 29 Kan. 218, 227; Aultman v. Waddle, 40 Kans. 195, 19 Pac. 730; Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. Hall, 147 Ky. 598, 144 S. W. 760; Holloway v. Dickinson, 137 Minn. 410, 163 N. W. 791; Gray v. Bemis, 128 Minn. 392,

151 N. W. 135; Duke v. Harper, 66 Mo. 51, 27 Am. Rep. 314; Taylor v. St. Louis Transit Co., 198 Mo. 715, 97 S. W. 155; Shelton v. Franklin, 224 Mo. 342, 123 S. W. 1084, 135 Am. St. Rep. 537; Taylor v. Perkins, 171 Mo. App. 246, 157 S. W. 122; Behnke v. Rathsam (Mo. App.), 209 S. W. 976; Mytton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 211 S. W. Ill; Coughlin v. N. Y. Cent. & Hud. Riv. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 443, 27 Am. Rep. 75; Begly v. Weddigen, 86 N. Y. App. D. 629, 83 N. Y. S. 805; McCoy v. Gas Engine Ac. Co., 152 N. Y. App. D. 642,137 N. Y. S. 591, affd. 208 N. Y. 631, 102 N. E. 1106 (cf. Fowler v. Callan, 102 N. Y. 395, 7 N. E. 169); Weakly v. Hall, 13 Ohio, 167, 42 Am. Dec. 194; Brown v. Ginn, 66 Ohio St. 316, 64 N. E. 123; Chester County v. Barber, 97 Pa. 455; Perry v. Dicken, 105 Pa. 83, 51 Am. Rep. 181; Martin v. Clarke, 8 R. I. 389,5 Am. Rep. 586; Hayney v. Coyne, 10 Heisk. 339; Fort Worth Ac. Ry. Co. v, Carlock, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 202, 75 S. W. 931; Nelson v. Evans, 21 Utah, 202, 60 Pac. 557; InreEvans, 42 Utah, 282, 130 Pac. 217; Hamilton v. Gray, 67 Vt. 233, 31 Atl. 315, 48 Am. St. Rep. 811; In re Aldrich, 86 Vt. 531, 86 Atl. 801; Nickels v. Kane's Adm., 82 Va. 309; Roller v. Murray, 107 Va. 527, 59 S. E. 421; Stearns v. Felker, 28 Wis. 594; Allard v. Lamirande, 29 Wis. 502; Dockery v. McLellan, 93 Wis. 381, 67 N. W. 733; Sparling v. United States Sugar Co., 136 Wis. 509, 117 N. W. 1055. See also Casser-leigh v. Wood, 119 Fed. 308, 56 C. C. A. 212. But a provision that the costs of litigation shall be deducted from the attorney's share of the gross recovery does not make an agreement illegal. Whilhite v. Roberts, 4 Dana, 172; Wood-Heckv. Roll (Ky.), 208 S. W. 768. Cf. also cases cited infra, Sec. 1714, n. 18.

In New York, though it is held that a contract by an attorney to advance the expense of litigation renders an agreement for contingent compensation illegal,10 yet if the attorney does not promise to advance the expense he may bargain that if he does in fact pay it, he shall be entitled for his services and expenses to the contingent compensation of a specified fractional share of the amount recovered.11

8Foster v. Jack, 4 Watts, 334; North Chicago R. Co. v. Ackley, 171 111. 100, 40 N. E. 222, 44 L. R. A. 771; Ellwood v. Wilson, 21 Iowa, 523; Boardman v. Thompson, 25 Iowa, 487; Kauffman v. Phillips, 154 la. 542,134 N. W. 575; Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806; Burho v. Carmichael, 117 Minn. 211, 135 N. W. 386; Davy v. Fidelity, etc., Ins. Co., 78 Ohio St. 256, 85 N. . 504, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443, 125 Am. St. Rep. 604. But see Hoffman v. Vallejo, 45 Cal. 564; Beagles v. Robertson, 135 Mo. App. 306, 115 S. W. 1042; Pittsburg, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Volkert, 58 Ohio St. 362, 50 N. E. 024; Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Hays (Okla.), 176 Pac. 031; Ryan v. Martin, 16 Wis. 57; Kusterer v. Beaver Dam, 56 Wis. 471, 14 N. W. 617, 43 Am. Rep. 725. In Newport Rolling Mill Co. v. Hall, 147 Ky. 508, 144 S. W. 760, it was held that the provision denying the right of settlement was void, but did not vitiate the rest of the contract. See also Nichols v. Waters, 201 Mich. 27, 167 N. W. 1. In re Snyder, 100 N. Y. 66, 82 N. E. 742, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1101, 123 Ann. St. 533, 13 Ann. Cas. 441; Greenleaf v. Minneapolis Ac. R., 30 N. Dak. 112, 151 N. W. 879, Ann. Cas. 1017 D. 908.

9 Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chanter Canto Mookerjee, 2 App. Cas. 186, 210 (India); Taylor v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 28 L. Ed. 64, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Hoffman v. Vallejo, 45 Cal. 564; Richardson v. Rowland, 40 Conn. 565; Metropolitan life Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 61 Conn. 252, 23 Atl. 103, 20 Am. St. Rep. 106; Grievance Committee v. Ennis, 84 Conn. 504, 80 Atl. 767 (see also Slade v. Zeitfuss, 77 Conn. 457, 50 Atl. 406); Merchants' Protective Assoc, v. Jaoobsen, 22 Ida. 636, 127 Pac. 315; Lehman v. Detroit Ac. R., 180 Mich. 362,147 N. W. 628; Fowler v. Callan, 102 N. Y. 305, 7 N. E. 160; Browne v. West, 0 N. Y. App. Div. 135, 41 N. Y. S. 146; Brown v. Bigne, 21 Oreg. 260, 28 Pac. 11, 14 L. R. A. 745, 28 Am. St. Rep. 752; Bentinck v. Franklin, 38 Tex. 458, 468; Stewart v. H. & T. C. Ry. Co., 62 Tex. 246. See also Bayard v. McLane, 3 Har. (Del.), 130; Vande-grift v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 87 Kan. 376, 124 Pac. 534; Schomp v. Schenck, 40 N. J. L. 105. Cf. Huber v. Johnson, 68 Minn. 74, 70 N. W. 806; Van Vleck v. Van Vleck, 21 N. Y. App. Div. 272, 47 N. Y. S. 470; Badger r. Celler, 41 N. Y. App. Div. 590, 58 N. Y. S. 653.

10 See New York cases cited supra, n. 7, 8,9.