Any agreement having for its purpose or consideration the concealment or compounding of a crime is unlawful.39 This is settlement of the civil obligation,42 even though prosecution has already been begun and is pending.43 Nor will the fact that the settlement is made in the apprehension of criminal proceedings, and with the hope that no such proceedings will be taken if the civil liability is settled, make the agreement unlawful, so long as there is no promise either express or implied to compound the criminal offence.44 An agreement also may be made by a prosecuting officer to recommend a nol. pros, to the court in consideration of an accused criminal turning State's evidence.45 Settlement of certain misdemeanors also which are primarily important because of the injury inflicted on particular individuals have been sustained. This principle has been most commonly applied to settlements of prosecutions for bastardy,46 but in several cases has been held to apply to

Div. 546, 42 N. Y. S. 418, 168 N. Y. 351, 53 N. E. 31; Badolato v. Molinari, 174 N. Y. S. 512; Easig v. Turner, 60 Wash. 175, 110 Pac. 398.

35 Leary v. United States, 224 U. 8. 567, 32 S. Ct. 509, 56 L. Ed. 889; Carr v. Davis, 64 W. Va. 522, 63 8. E. 326, 20 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 58 (two judges diss.). Holmes, J., in the former case said (p. 575): "If as in this case, the bond was for $40,000, that sum was the measure of the interest on anybody's part, and it did not matter to the Government what person ultimately felt the loss so long as it had the obligation it was content to take." Cf. United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S 729, 28 L. Ed. 308, 4 8. Ct. 196.

36 Stevens v. Hay, 61 11I. 399; Harp v. Osgood, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 216. In the following cases such contracts were enforced, but the question of public policy was not discussed. Anderson v. Spence, 72 Ind. 315; Aldrich v. Ames, 9 Gray, 76; Holmes v. Knights, 10 N. H. 175. They were held unlawful in Dunkin v. Hodge, 46 Ala. 525, and see Mayne v. Fidelity Ac. Co., 198 Pa. 490, 48 Atl. 469.

37 United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729, 28 L. Ed. 308, 4 8. Ct. Rep. 196.

38 Fisher v. Fallows, 5 Esp. 171; Jones v. Orchard, 16 C. B. 614; Cripps v. Hartnoll, 4 B. & 8. 414; United States v. Greene, 163 Fed. 442. But see contra, Reynolds v. Hanoi, 2 Strobh. 87. An express contract by the principal to repay the surety would not seem to help the matter, but see Simpson v. Roberts, 36 Ga. 180. Cf. diss, opinion of Miller, J., in Carr v. Davis, 64 W. Va. 522,638. E. 326,20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 58.

39 Williams v. Bayiey, LR.1H L 200; Lound v. Grimwade, 39 Ch. D. 605; Windhfll Board of Health v. Vint, 45 Ch. D. 351; Jones v. Merionethshire Building Soc., [1891] 2 Ol 587; [1892] 1 Ch. 173; In re Lawrence, 166 Fed. 239, 92 C. C. A. 251; United States Fidelity Co. v. Charles, 131 Ala. 658, 31 So. 558, 57 L. R. A. 212; Hart-sell v. Roberts, 185 Ala. 201,64 So. 90; Berry v. Dunn (Ala., 1918), 78 So. 51, L. R. A. 1918 D. 939; Kirkland v. Benjamin, 67 Ark. 480, 55 S. W. 840; Goodrum v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank, 102 Ark. 326, 144 8. W. 198, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 511; Shearer v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 121 Ark. 599, 182 8. W. 262; Winter v. Lewis (Ark.), 200 S. W. 981; Ogden v. Ford (Cal.), 176 Pac. 165; McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221, 36 Am. Rep. 67; Chandler v. Johnson, 39 Ga. 85; Godwin v. Crow-ell, 56 Ga. 566; Jones v. Dannenberg true though no crime in fact had been committed, if prosecution has been begun; 40 but if neither a crime has been committed, nor prosecution begun the agreement is not unlawful.41 The fact that the same act creates a criminal liability as well as a civil obligation will not invalidate an agreement for the

Co., 112 Ga. 428, 37 S. E. 729; Deen v. Williams, 128 Ga. 265, 57 S. E. 427; Jordan 0. Beecher, 143 Ga. 143, 84 S. E. 549, L. R. A. 1915 D. 1122; William-Hester Marble Co. 0. Walton (Ga. App.), 96 S. E. 269; Henderson 0. Palmer, 71 111. 579, 22 Am. Rep. 117; Peed v. McKee, 42 Iowa, 689; Smith v. Steely, 80 Iowa, 738, 45 N. W. 912; Rosenbaum v. Levitt, 109 Iowa, 292, 80 N. W. 393; Friend v. Miller, 52 Kans. 139,34 Pac. 397,39 Am. St. Rep. 340; Kimbrough v. Lane, 11 Bush, 556; American Nat. Bank v. Madison, 144 Ky. 152, 137 S. W.1076, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 597; Shaw 0. Reed, 30 Me. 105; Taylor 0. Jaques, 106 Mass. 291; Gor-ham 0. Keyes, 137 Mass. 583; Snider v. Willey, 33 Mich. 483; Case 0. Smith, 107 Mich. 416, 65 N. W. 279, 31 L. R. A. 282, 61 Am. St. Rep. 341; Koons v. Vauconsant, 129 Mich. 260, 88 N. W. 630, 95 Am. St. Rep. 438; Sumner v. Summers, 54 Mo. 340; Baker 0. Farris, 61 Mo. 389; Metropolitan Land Co. v. Manning, 98 Mo. App. 248, 71 N. W. 696; Shafer 0. Beatrice State Bank, 99 Neb. 317 (sub nam. Shafer v. Harden), 156 N. W. 632; Shaw 0. Spooner, 9 N. H. 197, 32 Am. Dec. 348; Bisbee v. Pulpit Farm Dairy (N. H.), 100 Atl. 672; Jourdan 0. Burstow, 76 N. J. Eq. 55, 74 Atl. 124, 139 Am. St. Rep. 741; Haynes 0. Rudd, 102 N. Y. 372, 7 N. E. 287, 55 Am. Rep. 815; Buffalo Press Club 0. Greene, 86 Hun, 20, 26 N. Y. S. 525, 5 N. Y. Misc. 501, 33 N. Y. S. 286; Strauss Linotyping Co. v. Schwalbe, 159 N. Y. App. Div. 347, 144 N. Y. S. 549; Catskill Nat. Bank v. Lasher, 165 N. Y. App. Div. 548, 151 N. Y. S. 191; Lindsay 0. Smith, 78 N. C. 328, 24 Am. Rep. 463; Corbett v. Clute, 137 N. C. 546, 50 S. E. 216; Alston v. Hill, 165 N. C. 255, 81 S. E. 291; Racine-Sattley Mfg. Co. v. Pavlicek, 21 N. Dak. 222, 130 N. W. 228; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio, 400, 22 Am. Dec. 759; Raguet v. Roll, 7 Ohio (pt. 1), 76; Springfield Fire, etc., Ins. Co. 0. Hull, 51 Ohio St. 270, 37 N. E. 1116, 25 L. R. A. 37, 46 Am. St. Rep. 571; Riddle 0. Hall, 99 Pa. St. 116; Bankhead v. Shed, 80 S. C. 253,61S. E. 425, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 971; Western Union Tel. Co. 0. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.), 179 S. W. 548; Wight 0. Rind-skopf, 43 Wis. 344. See also Weber 0. Shay, 56 Ohio St. 116, 46 N. E. 377, 37 L. R. A. 230, 60 Am. St. Rep. 473; City National Bank 0. Kusworm, 88 Wis. 188, 59 N. W. 564, 26 L. R. A. 48, 43 Am. St. Rep. 880; Mack 0. Prang, 104 Wis. 1, 79 N. W. 770, 45 L. R. A. 407, 76 Am. St. Rep. 848. Cf. Allen v. Dunham, 92 Tenn. 257, 269, 21 S. W. 898; Loud 0. Hamilton (Tenn.), 45 L. R. A. 400.

40 W. T. Joyce Co. 0. Rohan, 134 la. 12, 111 N. W. 319, 120 Am. St. Rep. 410; Koons v. Vauoonsant, 129 Mich. 260,88 N. W. 630, 95 Am. St. Rep. 438; Manning 0. Columbian Lodge, 57 N. J. Eq. 338,340,38 Atl. 444,45 Atl. 1092.

41 Woodham v. Allen, 130 Cal. 194, 62 Pac. 398; Rieman v3. Morrison, 264 11I. 279,106 N. E. 215; Baker v. Farris, 61 Mo. 389; Manning 0. Columbian Lodge, 57 N. J. Eq. 338, 38 Atl. 444, 45 Atl. 1092; Steuben County Bank 0. Mathewson, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 249; Swope 0. Jefferson Fire Ins. Co., 93 Pa. St. 251; Schults v. Catlin, 78 Wis. 611, 47 N. W. 946. But see contra Koons v. Vauconsant, 129 Mich. 260, 88 N- W. 630, 95 Am. St. Rep. 438.

42 Keir v. Leeman, 9 Q. B. 371, 375; Flower v. Sadler, 10 Q. B. D. 572; McClatchie v. Haslam, 65 L. T. 691; Goodrum v. Merchants' & Planters' Bank, 102 Ark. 326, 144 & W. 198; Lomax v. Colorado Nat. Bank, 46 Col. 229, 104 Pac. 86; Godding v. Hall, 56 Colo. 579, 140 Pac. 165; Paige v. Hieronymus, 192 111. 546, 61 N. . 832; Rieman v. Morrison, 264 111. 279, 106 N. E. 215; Sloan v. Davis, 105 Iowa, 97,

74 N. W. 922; Powell v. Flanary, 109 Ky. 342, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 90S, 59 S. W. 5; Higgins v. Sowards, 159 Ky. 783, 169 S. W. 554; Atwood v. Fisk, 101 Mass. 363, 100 Am. Dec. 124; Thorn v. Pinkham, 84 Me. 101, 24 Atl. 718, 30 Am. St. 335; Beath v. Chapoton, 115 Mich. 506, 73 N. W. 806, 69 Am. St. Rep. 589; Cass County Bank v. Bricker, 34 Neb. 516, 52 N. W. 575, 33 Am. St. Rep. 649; Barrett v. Weber, 125 N. Y. 18, 25 N. E. 1068; Portner v;. Kirschner, 169 Pa. 472, 32 Atl. 442, 47 Am. St. Rep. 925.

43 In Board of Education v. Angel,

75 W. Va. 747, 84 S. E. 747, 748, L. R. A. 1915 E. 139, the court said: "It is well settled law that, though criminal proceedings have been begun and be pending against the wrongdoer for the crime, one whose money or property has been embezzled, or fraudulently procured, may contract with such wrongdoer for repayment or satisfaction of the loss, and take security therefor, without invalidating such contract, unless there be included therein and as part consideration therefor some promise or agreement, express or implied, that such prosecution shall be suppressed, stifled or stayed. 9 Cyc. 506, and notes citing cases; Johnston v. Allen, 22 Fla. 224, 1 Am. St. Rep. 180; Portner v. Kirschner, 169 Pa. 472, 32 Atl. 442, 47 Am. St. Rep. 925,1 Page on Cont., Sec 418; Tecumseh Nat. Bank v. Chamberlain Banking House, 63 Neb. 163, 88 N. W. 186, 57 L. R. A. 811; Fosdick v. Van* Arsdale, 74 Mich. 302, 41 N. W. 931."

44 Higgins v. Sowards, 159 Ky. 783, 169 S. W. 554; and see cases cited in the preceding note.

45 Nickelson v. Wilson, 60 N. Y. 362; Rogers v. Hill, 22 R. 1.496,48 Atl. 67Q.

46 Robinson v. Crenshaw, 2 Stew. & Porter, 276; Martin v. State, 62 Ala. 119; Breathwit v. Rogers, 32 Ark. 758; McMahon v. Smith, 47 Conn. 221, 223, 36 Am. Rep. 67; Davis v. Moody, 15 Ga. 175; Jones v. Peterson, 117 Ga. 58, 43 S. E. 417; Coleman v. Frum, 4 111. 378; Allyn v. Allyn, 108 Ind. 327, 9 other misdemeanors, as assault,47 non-support,47a trespass,48 and obtaining property by false pretences.49