As it is the duty of a public official charged with making ap-pointments to make the best appointments possible without reference to private interests, and as it is expedient that those occupying public office shall have such inducements as its emoluments afford for the faithful performance of their duties, a contract to make a certain appointment or to influence the making of an appointment by such an official, or for an official to share the emoluments of his office with another, is invalid.10 For the same reason, a contract of one who holds

9 Citing Lyon v. Mitchell, 36 N. Y. 235, 03 Am. Dec. 502; Southard v. Boyd, 51 N. Y. 177. See also Hegnees v. Chilberg, 224 Fed. 28, 139 C. C. A. 492; Bush v. Russell, 180 Ala. 590, 61 So. 373; Anderson v. Blair (Ala.), 80 So. 31; Kansas City Paper House v. Foley Ry. Printing Co., 85 Kan. 678, 118 Pac. 1056, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 747, 751; Beck v. Bauman, 187 N. Y. App. D. 774, 175 N. Y. S. 881; Winpenny v. French, 18 Ohio St. 469.

10 Meguire v. Corwine,, 101 U. S. 108, 25 L. Ed. 899; Schloss v. Hewlett, 81 Ala. 266, 1 So. 263; Edwards v. Randle, 63 Ark. 318, 38 S. W. 343, 36 L. R. A. 174, 58 Am. St. Rep. 108; Martin v. Wade, 37 Calif. 168; Conner v. Canter, 15 Ind. App. 690, 44 N. E. 656; Aughey v. Windrem, 137 Iowa, 315, 114 N. W. 1047; Eversole v. Holliday, 131 Ky. 202, 114 8. W. 1195; Martin v. Francis, 173 Ky. 529, 191 S. W. 259, L. R. A. 1918 F. 966; Ann. Cas. 1918 E. 289; Glover v. Taylor, 38 La. Ann. 634; Schneider v. Local Union No. 60, 116 La. 270, 40 So. 700, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 891, 114 Am. St. 549; Harris v. Chamberlain, 126 Mich. 280, 85 N. W. 728; Anderson v. Bran-strom, 173 Mich. 157, 139 N. W. 40, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 422; Ann. Cas. 1914 D. 817; Dickson v. Kittson, 75 Minn. 168, 77 N. W. 820, 74 Am. St. Rep. 447; Keating v. Hyde, 23 Mo. App. 555; Hand v. Willard F. Bailey Co. (Neb.), 172 N. W. 356; Water Commissioners v. Cramer, 61 N. J. L. 270, 39 Atl. 671, 68 Am. St. Rep. 705; Gray v. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449; Basket v. Moss, 115 N. C. 448, 20 S. E. 733, 48 L. R. A. 842, 44 Am. St. Rep. 463; a public office or of one who is a candidate for such an office, the emoluments of which are fixed by law, to take less than legal compensation is invalid.11 If the agreement is executed by the payment of the diminished emoluments, there are decisions, holding that no further claim can be made.12 But the opposite view, also supported by authority, seems better.13 A debt has accrued which cannot be surrendered by parol without consideration. 14

A bargain for greater compensation than the law permits is even more clearly invalid.15

Wishek v. Hammond, 10 N. Dak. 72, 84 N. W. 687; Serrill v. Wilder, 77 Oh. St. 343,83 N. E. 486,14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 982; Hunter v. Nolf, 71 Pa. 282; Whitman v. Ervin (Tenn. Ch.), 39 S. W. 742; Willis v. Weatherford Compress Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 472; McCall v, Whaley, 52 Tex. Civ. App. 646, 115 S. W. 658; Meacham v. Dow, 32 Vt. 721; Livingston v. Page, 74 Vt. 356, 52 Atl. 965, 59 L. R. A. 336, 93 Am. St. Rep. 901; White v. Cook, 51 W. Va. 201, 41 8. E. 410, 57 L. R. A. 417, 90 Am. St. Rep. 775; Stephenson v. Salisbury, 53 W. Va. 366, 44 S. . 217; McGraw v. Traders' Nat. Bank, 64 W. Va. 509, 63 S. E. 398. But see, Shinn v. Shinn, 78 W. Va. 44, 88 S. E. 610, L. R. A. 1916 E. 618. An agreement of a public officer having for its object the performance by another of duties which he himself was bound by his office to do is also obviously against public policy. Twiggs v. Wing-field, 147 Qa. 790, 95 S. E. 711, L. R. A. 1918 E. 757.

11 Miller v. United States, 103 Fed. 413; Ohio Nat. Bank v. Hopkins, 8 App. D. C. 146; Galpin v. Chicago, 269 11I. 27, 109 N. E. 713, L. R. A. 1917 B. 176; City School Corp. of Evansville v. Hickman, 47 Ind. App. 500, 94 N. E. 828; Hawkeye Ins. Co. v. Brainard, 72 Iowa, 130, 33 N. W. 603; Dodson v. McCurnin, 178 la. 1211, 160 N. W. 927, L. R. A. 1917 C. 1084; Second

Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 114 Ky. 516, 71 S. W. 429; In re Irwin's Estate, 123 Mo. App. 508, 100 S. W. 565; Gal-laher v. Lincoln, 63 Neb. 339,88 N. W. 505; Abbott v. Hayes County, 78 Neb. 729, 111 N. W. 780; People v. Board of Police, 75 N. Y. 38; Pitt v. Board of Education, 216 N. Y. 304, 110 N. E. 612; Pittsburg v. Go&hora, 230 Pa. 212, 79 Atl. 505; State v. Mayor, 15 Lea, 697, 54 Am. Rep. 427; Hoffman v. Chippewa County, 77 Wis. 214, 45 N. W. 1083, 8 L. R. A. 781. See also Lukens v. Nye, 156 Calif. 488, 105 Pac. 593, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.)

12 Second Nat. Bank v. Ferguson, 114 Ky. 516, 71 S. W. 429; O'Hara o. Park River, 1 N. Dak. 279, 47 N. W. 380; De Boest v. GambeU, 35 Oreg. 368, 58 Pac. 72, 353; Kay v. Monctou, 36 N. Brune. 377. See also Harvey ». Tama County, 53 Iowa, 228, 5 N. W. 130.

13 Ohio Nat Bank v. Hopkins, 8 App. D. C. 146; School City p. Hickman, 47 Ind. App. 500; Pitt v. Board of Education, 216 N. Y. 304,110 N. E. 612.

14 Supra, Sec.120.

15 Edgerly v. Hale, 71 N. H. 138, 51 Atl. 679; Dull v. Mammoth Min. Co., 28 Utah, 467, 79 Pac. 1050. See also Oden v. Coco, 249 U. S. 587,39 S. Ct 386; Coco v. Oden, 143 La. 718, 79 So. 287.