[50] Clippinger _v._ Hepbaugh, 5 Watts. & Serg. 315; Marshall _v._ The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 16 Howard (S. C.) Rep. 336. That champerty is an offence at common law, and that contracts of that character, between client and counsel, are void on that ground, and as against public policy, will be found to have been maintained in Rust _v._ Larue, 4 Litt. 411; Caldwell's Administrators _v._ Shepherd's Heirs, 6 Monroe, 391; Thurston _v._ Percival, 1 Pick. 415; Arden _v._ Patterson, 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 48; Bleakley's case, 5 Paige, 311; Wallis _v._ Loubert, 2 Denio, 607; Backus _v_. Byron, 4 Michigan, 535; Elliott _v._ McClelland, 17 Alabama, 206. The cases on the other side, are, Thallhimer _v._ Brinckerhoff, 3 Cowen, 643; Ramsay's Devisees _v._ Trent, 10 B. Monroe, 336; Bayard _v._ McLane, 3 Harrington, 216; Lytle _v._ State, 17 Arkansas, 608; Newkirk _v._ Cone, 18 Illinois, 449; Major _v._ Gibson, 1 Patton Jr. & Heath (Va.), 48; Wright _v._ Meek, 3 Iowa, 472. In New York, by the Revised Statutes, it was made an offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment, 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.