Champerty

3 A bargain with a plaintiff or defendant, eampum partire, to divide the land or other matter sued for between them, if they prevail: whereupon the champertor is to carry on the party's suit at his own expense... The purchasing of a suit or right of suing.* Champart, in the French law, signifies a similar division of profits, being a part of the crop annually due to the landlord by bargain or custom. * Champertor. One who purchases or promotes another's suit; a person chargeable with champerty.

Champertous

Infected with champerty. Champerty is the unlawful maintenance of a suit in consideration of some bargain to have a part of the thing in dispute, or some profit out of it.' A common example is (or was) the case of a contract by an attorney to collect a claim for a percentage.' Also of a champertous character are: purchases of demands involving litigation, of pretended titles, and like claims which cannot be realized upon except by lawsuit.' As between an attorney and his client, it is essential that the attorney prosecute the suit at his own expense. 8, Where the right to compensation is not confined to an i Dterest in the thing recovered, but gives a right of action agamst the party, though pledging the avails of the suit as security tor payment, the agreement is not champertous.^ Some courts have ruled that if the fact that a suit is being prosecuted upon a champertous contract comes to the knowledge of the court in any proper manner, it should refuse longer to entertain the proceeding. Other coiu-ts have held, what seems supported by the better reason, that the fact that there is a champertous contract for the prosecution of a cause of action is no ground of defense thereto, and can only be set up by the client against the attorney when the champertous agreement is sought to be enforced.. The tendency is to relax the common-law doctrine so as to ' Pittsburg, Ft. W., &c.

E. Co. v. Hurd, 17 Ohio St. 146-47 (1866). " Whereatt v. Ellis, 65 Wis. 644 (1886). ' Sham'-perty. « 4 Bl. Com. 163. See a Story, Eq. § 1048; 4 Hughes, 683; 10 F. E. 633; 63 Ind. 317; 22 Wend. 405. <■ Stanley v. Jones, 7 Bing. '377 (1831), Tindal, C. J. « See Ackert v. Baker, 131 Mass. 437-^ (1881), cases; Mc Pherson v. Cox, 06 U. S. 404, 416 (1877); Atchison, &c. E. Co. V. Johnson, 29 Kan. 227 (1883), cases. ' 2 Story, Eq. §§ 1048-57. Com'rs, 119 111.

637 (1887). permit greater liberality of contracting between attorney and client than was formerly allowed, for the reason that the condition of society which gave rise to the doctrine has, in a great measure, passed away. In some States the common-law rule is altogether repudiated.^ The English common law and statutes against maintenance and champerty had their origin, if not their necessity, in a different state of society from that which prevails at the present time. When the doctrine was established, lords and other large landholders were accustomed to buy up contested claims against each other, or against commoners with whom they were at variance, in order to harass and oppose those in possession. On: the other hand, commoners, by way of self-defense, thinking that they had title to land, would convey part of their interest to some powerful lord, in order, through his influence, to secure their pretended right. The want of sufficient written conveyances, and records of titles, and the feudal relation of villein and liege lord, afforded facilities for the combinations and oppressions which followed this state of things. The power of the nobles became mighty in corrupting the fountains of justice. To remedy these evils, the law against both maintenance, and champerty was introduced.'^ CHAI^CE. A thing happens by chance to a person which is neither brought about norpre-estimated by his undei-standing.'

See Game, 2; Medley.