onment, and removal from the Bar, for any
attorney, counsellor, or solicitor, directly or indirectly to buy, or be
in any manner interested in buying, or to advance or procure money to be
advanced upon anything in action, with the intent, or for the purpose of
bringing any suit thereon. 2 Revised Stat. 386. The Code of Procedure
appears to have changed the law in this respect, and to enable parties
to make such bargains as they please with their attorneys. Code of
Procedure, s. 258; Satterlee _v._ Frazer, 2 Sandf. S. C. Rep. 142;
Benedict _v_. Stuart, 23 Barb. 420; Ogden _v._ Des Arts, 4 Duer (N. Y.),
275; Sedgwick _v._ Stanton, 4 Kernan, 289. In Kentucky there appears to
be a statute, which provides that any one not a party, receiving as
compensation for services in prosecuting or defending a suit the whole
or part of the subject-matter in suit, is guilty of champerty, and it
has been held that this statute extends to attorneys. Davis _v._
Sharron, 15 B. Monroe, 64. In England, contingent fees are held to be
clearly within the statutes of champerty and maintenance. Penrice _v._
Parker, Rep. Temp. Finch, 75.

[51] 2 Wallace, Jr. Rep. 452.

[52] 10 Casey, 299.

[53] Paciscendi quidem ille piraticus mos; et imponentium periculis
pretia, procul abominanda negotiatio, etiam a mediocriter improbis
aberit: cum praesertim bonos homines bonasque causas tuenti non sit
metuendus ingratus, qui si futurus, malo tamen ille peccet. Quinct. Lib.
xii, c. 7.

[54] Evans _v._ Ellis, 5 Denio, 640; Newman _v._ Payne, 2 Ves. 199;
Walmsley _v._ Booth, 3 Atk. 25; Montesquieu _v._ Sandys, 18 Ves. 313.
The doctrine has been fully followed in this country; Stockton _v._
Ford, 11 How. U. S. 247; Starr _v._ Vanderheyden, 9 Johns. 253; Howell
_v._ Ransom, 11 Paige, 538; De Rose _v._ Fay, 4 Edw. Ch. 40; Lewis _v._
J. A., Ibid. 599; Berrien _v._ McLane, 1 Hoffman, Ch. Rep. 424; Miles
_v._ Ervin, 1 McCord, Ch. Rep. 524; Rose _v._ Mynell, 7 Yerger, 30; Bibb
_v._ Smith, 1 Dana, 482; Smith _v._ Thompson's Heirs, 7 B. Monroe, 308;
Jennings _v._ McConnel, 17 Illinois, 148.

An agreement made by a client with his counsel, after the latter had
been employed in a particular business, by which the original contract
is varied, and greater compensation is secured to the counsel than may
have been agreed upon when first retained, is invalid and cannot be
enforced. Lecatt _v._ Sallee, 3 Porter, 115.

[55] In Foss's Grandeur of the Law, eighty-two existing p