The officers and even the stockholders of a private corporation are under certain duties to it and often to the public, which must not be made the subject of bargain. An agreement by a large stockholder or group of stockholders for considerations enuring to them personally, to procure the appointment of another as an officer of the corporation is invalid.41a And if the main purpose of a contract between corporate stockholders is to secure a passive directorate, subject to control of one stockholder or a group of stockholders, it is unlawful.4lb But" it is not illegal or against public policy for two or more stockholders owning the majority of the shares of stock to unite upon a course of corporate policy or action, or upon the officers whom they will elect. An ordinary agreement among a minority in number, but a majority in shares, for the purpose of obtaining control of the corporation by the election of particular persons as directors is not illegal. Shareholders have the right to combine their interests and voting powers to secure such control of the corporation, and the adoption of and adhesion by it to a specific policy and course of business. Agreements upon a sufficient consideration between them, of such intendment and effect, are valid and binding, if they do not contravene any express charter or statutory provision or contemplate any fraud, oppression, or wrong against other stockholders or other illegal object." 41C But a bargain to vote for corporate action in consideration of other private advantage than that which might accrue to the promisor from the benefit to the corporation from taking the action, is invalid.41d

40 Bridge v. Cage, Cro. Jac. 103; Placket v. Gresham, 3 Salk. 75; Morris v. Burdett, 1 Camp. 218; Neustadt v. Hall, 58 111. 172; Mason v. Manning, 150 Ky. 805, 150 S. W. 1020; Putnam v. Woodbury, 68 Me. 58; Kick v. Merry, 23 Mo. 72, 66 Am. Dec. 658; Cowing v. Altraan, 71 N. Y. 435, 27 Am. Rep. 70.

41 Bracebridge v. Vaughan, 1 Cro. Eliz. 66; Fuller v. Prest, 7 T. R. 109; Cole v. Gower, 6 East, 110; El Dorado County v. Davison, 30 Cal. 520; Carey v. Prentice, 1 Root, 91; Cook v. Ship-man, 24 111.- 614; Hennessey v. Hill, 52 111. 281; Cole v. Parker, 7 Iowa, 167, 71 Am. Dec. 439; Lucas v. Allen, 80 Ky. 681; Bills v. Comstock, 12 Met. 468; Wheelwright v. Sylvester, 4 Allen, 59; Newson v. Thighen, 30 Miss. 414; McWilliams v. Phillips, 51 Miss. 196 (but see Appling County v. McWilliams, 69 Ga. 840); Bank of Orange County v. Wakeman, 1 Cow. 46; Board v, Thompson, 33 Ohio St. 321.

41a West v. Camden, 135 U. S. 507, 84 L. Ed. 254, 10 S. Ct. 838; Gilchrist v. Hatch (Ind. App.), 100 N. E. 473; Noel v. Drake, 28 Kan. 265, 42 Am. Rep. 162; Guernsey v. Cook, 120 Mass. 501; Noyes v. Marsh, 123 Mass. 286; Woodruff v. Wentworth, 133 Mass. 309; Wilbur v. Stoepel, 82 Mich. 344,

46 N. W. 724, 21 Am. St. Rep. 568; Scripps v. Sweeney, 160 Mich. 148, 125 N. W. 72; Dickson v. Kittson, 75 Minn. 168, 77 N. W. 820; Cone v. Russell, 48 N. J. Eq. 208, 21 Atl. 847; Fennessy v. Ross, 5 N. Y. App. Div. 342, 39 N. Y. S. 323; Snow v. Church, 13 N. Y. App. Div. 108, 42 N. Y. S. 1072; Fabre v. O'Donohue, 173 N. Y. S. 472; Gage v. Fisher, 5 N. Dak. 297, 65 N. W. 809, 31 L. R. A. 557; Withers v. Edwards, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 189, 62 S. W. 795. See also Elliott v. Richardson, L. R. 5 C. P. 744; Blue v. Capital Nat. Bank, 145 Ind. 518, 43 N. E. 655; McClure v. Law, 161 N. Y. 78, 55 N. E. 388, 76 Am. St. Rep. 262; Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 66 N. E. 133, 61 L. R. A. 807, 93 Am. St. Rep., 623; Wood v. Manchester Fire, etc., Co., 54 N. Y. App. Div. 522, 63 N. Y. S. 427, 67 N. Y. S. 1150; Flaherty v. Cary, 62 N. Y. App. Div. 116, 70 N. Y. S. 951, affd. 174 N. Y. 550, 67 N. E. 1082. Cf. Greenwell v. Porter, [1902] 1 Ch. 530; Almy v. One, 165 Mass. 126, 42 N. E. 561; Gassett v. Glazier, 165 Mass. 473, 43 N. E. 193; Seymour v. Detroit, etc., Mills, 56 Mich. 117, 22 N. W. 317, 23 N. W. 186; Barnes v. Brown, 80 N. Y. 527; Bonta v. Gridley, 77 N. Y. App. Div. 33, 78 N. Y. S. 961.