It is held in England that a contract by the principal of a bail bond to indemnify sureties against liability for the principal's default is invalid.33 The reason for such decisions is that the object of the law in requiring a surety is to retain his personal responsibility and that his motive for vigilance would be removed if he were secured by the principal. This reason obviously has little application where local statutes permit the accused to give cash bail, and in such jurisdictions a contract of indemnity has been upheld,34 and influential decisions supthe agreement held unobjectionable. In Plating Co. v. Farquharson, 17 Ch. Div. 49, the court in considering an advertisement of 100 reward to anyone who could " produce documentary evidence that nickel plating was done prior to 1869/' intimated that the same method of securing evidence in civil cases was both common and proper, saying: "Advertisements of a similar nature are very common. You advertise for a lost deed or a lost will, or you advertise for a certificate of marriage or of baptism, to prove heirship or kinship. That is done as a matter of course.....And I have never heard it suggested that those advertisements were illegal, or were not a proper mode of obtaining evidence."

32 Bierbauer v. Wirth, 5 Fed. 336; Valentine v. Stewart, 15 Gal. 387; Hoyt v. Macon, 2 Colo. 502; Lazenby v. Lazenby, 132 Ga. 836,65 S. E. 120; Haines v. Lewis, 54 la. 301, 6 N. W. 405, 37 Am. Rep. 202; Feltner v. Felt-ner, 132 Ky. 705, 116 S. W. 1196; Johnson v. McMillon, 178 Ky. 707, 199 S. W. 1070, L. R. A. 1918 C. 244; Crisup v. Grosslight, 79 Mich. 380, 44

N. W. 621; Thompson v. Whitman, 4 Jones (N. C), 47; Bostick v. M'Claren, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 275. In Josephs v. Briant, 108 Ark. 171, 157 S. W. 136, the court held that a contract to get possession of letters to prevent them from being used in a criminal prosecution against the writer for unlawfully using the mail was illegal, but that it would be valid if the contract was merely to enable the writer to get the letters to prevent them from being unlawfully mailed to another.

33 Consolidated Finance Co. v. Mus-grave, [1900] 1 Ch. 37. See also United States v. Simmons, 47 Fed. 575, 14 L. R. A. 78; United States v. Greene, 163 Fed. 442. Cf. Jones v. Orchard, 16 C. B. 614. If the purpose of the transaction is to enable the principal to flee and the surety participates in this purpose the illegality is obvious. Baehr v. Wolff, 59 111. 470. The deposit of money as security with the surety is likewise illegal in England and as the law in such a case leaves the parties where it finds them, the money cannot be reclaimed by the depositor. Herman v. Jeuchner, 15 Q. B. D. 561.

34 Maloney v. Nelson, 12 N. Y. App.

port such a contract even apart from such statutes. 35 There seems less reason for objection to the contract of a third person to indemnify the bail, and such contracts are generally enforced.36 For the same reason that validity has been denied to a contract by the accused to indemnify bail, if the bail bond is forfeited and the surety pays, he can have no subrogation to the government's right against the principal,37 nor has he any quasi-contractual right to recover from the principal what he has paid.38