with a woman seduced by obligor, and for maintenance after his death, is void a. To debt on bond, the defendant pleaded that the bond was given to secure payment of the price of goods agreed to be sold and delivered in London, by the plaintiff to the defendant, to be by the latter shipped to Ostend, and from thence reshipped for the East Indies, and there trafficked with clandestinely; held, a sufficient bar to the action; the case being within statute 7 Geo. I. c. 21, which avoids all contracts for supplying cargoes to foreign ships in such a trade . An officer cannot commute for money the services of an impressed man, nor let him go for money and a bond given to secure the man's return on non-payment of such money, is void, and may be avoided by plea disclosing the true transaction, and shewing that the man was illegally impressed c. The illegality of the condition of the bond may be shown by the plaintiff, in stating the bond itself with the condition in the declaration; or if he omit to state the condition it may be shown by the defendant in his plea, and the court will equally take notice of the illegality in either case d. Where a bond was given for payment of 10,000l., with a condition that the money should be paid on the obligee's procuring subscriptions for 9,000 shares in a company to be formed of many persons for the purpose of becoming assignees of a patent, and carrying on the patent process, which patent contained a proviso that it should be void if assigned to more than five persons; held, that the bond was void, as being conditioned to perform an illegal act, and that the plaintiff was bound to know the terms of the patent, whereby an assignment to more than five persons was prohibited; at all events, he must be presumed to know the law of the land, by which all monopolies, unless allowed by patent, were illegal. And see a Walker v. Perkins, 3 Burr. 1568. 1 W. Black. 517. Gibson v. Dickie, 3 M. & S. 463. See ante, 35. Lightfoot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. с Pole 2. Harrobin, 9 East, 417. n. Duvergier v. Fellowes, 1 Clark & Fen. 39. 10 B. & C. 826. • Id. Bonds and agreements in general restraint of trade are illegal". So are bonds in restraint of marriage b; and even a bond entered into for procuring marriage, or given after marriage pursuant to a previous promise, is illegal. So are bonds conditioned for the payment of money for appointments to offices, the sale of which is prohibited by statuted. So are bonds given in respect of stock-jobbing transactions *. gambling transactions in foreign funds or securities are not prohibited by the statute. Bonds given for money lost at games are illegals. So are bonds given in respect of usurious transactions h. Bonds in general restraint of trade are illegal. bonds. Bonds given for simoniacal contracts are illegal. Simony is Simoniacal the corrupt presentation of any one to an ecclesiastical benefice for money, gift or reward i. The first statutory provision on this subject is the 31st of Eliz. c. 6. which enacts, "that if any person or persons shall for money, profit or benefit, or by reason of any contract, bond, &c., directly or indirectly, present or collate to any benefice, &c., or bestow the same for any corrupt consideration, every such presentation, &c., shall be utterly void." And by sec. 8, "if any incumbent of any benefice shall corruptly resign or exchange the same, or shall corruptly take for resigning the same, any money or benefit, &c., then as well the giver as the taker shall lose double the value of the sum so given," and by the 12th Anne, stat. 2. c. 12. s. 2, "if any person for money or profit, or for any agreement or bond, &c., shall directly or indirectly in his own name or the name of any other person, procure the next presentation to any ecclesiastical living, and shall be presented or collated thereupon, every such presentation, &c., shall be void, and such agreement * See ante, 638. Hartly v. Rice, 10 East, 22. Lowe . Peirs, 4 Burr. 2233. Baker v. White, Ves. 215. Roberts v. Roberts, 3 P. Wms. 75. Smith v. Aykwell, 3 Atk. 566. * 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 16. 53 Geo. III. c. 129. Law v. Law, Cas. temp. Talbot, 140. Palmer v. Bate, 6 Moore, 28. Garforth v. Fearon, 1 H. Bl. 327. shall be deemed a simoniacal contract, and it shall be lawful for the crown to present for that time only; and the person so corruptly accepting the living shall thenceforth be disabled to enjoy the same." It has been held that bonds given to pay money to charitable uses, on receiving a presentation to a living, or for the performance of duties which the incumbent was by law bound to perform, as that he shall reside upon the living, and keep the parsonage-house in proper repair, were not illegal; there being no corrupt consideration moving to the patron. And for a long series of years it was considered that a general bond to resign at the patron's request, was perfectly legal, if there was nothing to show that it was given for a corrupt consideration; until at length the House of Lords, on a writ of error brought from a decision of the courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, decided, by a majority of one, (the division being nineteen against eighteen,) that a general bond of resignation was illegal, as it was a benefit to the patron within the 31st Elizabeth, thereby reversing the decision of the courts below. The courts below, however, were reluctant to yield to the principle on which the above case was decided, and except in cases precisely similar they did not feel themselves bound by the authority of it; and accordingly they held that a special bond to resign in favour of a son or near relation of the patron was not within the 31st Eliz. d But this doctrine was also overruled by the House of Lords in the celebrated case of Fletcher v. Lord Sondes, wherein it was decided, with the concurrence of a majority of the judges, (there being eight against four,) that a bond conditioned to resign at the request of the patron for the purpose of enabling him to present one of his a 2 Bl. Com. 279. Partridge v. Whiston, 4 T. R. 359. Babington v. Wood, Cro. Car. 180. Jones v. Lawrence, Cro. Jac. 248. Bishop of London v. Ffytche, infra. A bond given by a schoolmaster, who had a freehold in his office, conditioned to resign at the request of his patron, has been held to be good. Legh v. Lewis, 1 East, 391. 3 B. & P. 231. The Bishop of London v. Ffytche, 3 Partridge v. Whiston, 4 T. R. 359. Lord Sondes v. Fletcher, 5 B. & A. 835. Newman v. Newman, 4 M. & S. 66. But see Young v. Jones, 3 Doug. 97. two younger brothers, when capable of holding it, was simoniacal and void under the 31st Eliz. a made be fore 1827, to be valid. As the effect of this decision would be to invalidate all special bonds of resignation previously entered into, and to avoid all presentations founded thereon, and to subject the parties to penalties, in order to relieve persons who entered into such contracts on the faith of their being legal from such inconveniences, it was enacted, by 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25, that no Contracts presentation to any spiritual office made before the 9th of April to resign 1827, should be void on account of any agreement to resign when another person specially named should be qualified to take the same, and that persons having made such agreement should not be subject to any penalty on account thereof; but that such agreements made before the above-mentioned period should be valid in law b. And a subsequent statute legalized all engagements to resign any benefice in favour of an uncle, son, grandson, brother, nephew, or grandnephew of the patron, or of one of the patrons by blood or marriage, not being merely a trustee, provided the engagement is entered into before the presentation, nomination, or collation, or appointment of the party entering into the same; and provided that one part of the instrument or writing, by which the engagement shall be made, be deposited, within the space of two months, in the office of the registrar of the diocese wherein the benefice is situate. Engage ments to resign in favour of relatives. of the next presenta tion when the incum bent is in extremis is On the purchase of an advowson in fee, the incumbent being Purchase in extremis, but without any privity of the clerk, the next presentation was held not to be void, as being upon a simoniacal contract. So, the sale of the next presentation, the incumbent being in extremis within the knowledge of both contracting parties, but without the privity or with a view to the nomination of the particular clerk, has been held not to be void on the ground of simony within 31 Eliz. c. 6. Fletcher v. Lord Sondes, 1 Bligh N. S. 144. 3 Bing. 598. overruling S. C. in 5 B. & A. 835. 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 25. 9 Geo. IV. c. 94. VOL. II. Barrett v. Glubb, 2 Black. 1052. eFox v. the Bishop of Chester, (in Error,) 6 Bing. 1. 1 Dow. & C. 416. 3 Bligh N. S. 123; overruling S. C. in 2 B. & C. 635. 4 D. & R. 93. E not void. In an action for use and occupation by an incumbent against a tenant of the glebe lands, who has paid him rent, the defendant cannot give evidence of a simoniacal presentation of the plaintiff, in order to avoid his title. Where the occupier of land has entered into an agreement for a composition for tithes, he cannot set up as a defence to an action on such agreement, that the incumbent was simoniacally presented b. 8.-What will discharge a bond.] In general whatever will discharge a covenantor from his covenant will have the same effect in respect of the obligor of a bond. The obligor of a bond therefore may be released from his obligation, if the performance of the condition was possible at the time of the execution of the bond, and afterwards became impossible by the act of God. So he may be excused by the act or omission of the obligee, as by a release d. By an alteration or cancellation of the instrument without his knowledge or consent. And if a material alteration is made after the execution is perfected, even with the consent of all parties, a new stamp will be required to render it valid. But a new stamp will not be required by reason of an alteration made with the consent of all parties, before the execution be perfected §. If the bond be joint, tearing off the seal of one obligor will avoid it as to all, but if several, tearing off the seal of one will not discharge the others h. So, the obligor will be discharged by the performance being prevented through the conduct of the obligee. By the intermarriage of the obligor and obligeek. If there be two obligors |