Majority
Title to land-Champerty.
Judgment of the Court
J.-We are all of opinion that these appeals should be dismissed with costs.
The original transfer from Briggs to Giegerich of nine-tenths of Briggs' interest was clearly champertous. Admittedly, it was in pursuance of an arrangement by which Giegerich was to maintain the suit against Newswander, Doras and Darignac for a share of the property to be recovered.
Newswander had a right of action against Giegerich for maintenance.
The transaction was wrongful towards him.
The present action was brought to enforce, as against Fleutot, the judgment in the suit against Newswander et
Whether Fleutot amEawH should be held barred by the judgment as an assignee of Newswander pendente lite or as having a prior interest represented by Newswander, Giegerich cannot be in a better position to enforce the judgment against him than against Newswonder himself. In our opinion a court of equity should not interfere against either Newswander or Fleutot at the instance of one claiming under a title so acquired.
See Burke v. Greene (2); Prosser v. Edmonds (3); Harrington v. Long ; Hilton v. Woods ; Re Cannon ; Peck v. Heurich
Giegerich alone appeals. Briggs has repudiated the transactions with him by conveying to Fleutot. In so far as they were illegal and wrongful towards Newswander Giegerich cannot insist on the right to use Briggs's name to enforce the former judgment. We agree with the court below, also, in considering the transfer of the remaining one-tenth interest as good.
It was severable and upon good consideration. The fact that the consideration was expressed to be in part for. a confirmation of the former illegal transfer could not invalidate the legal part of the transaction. See Pigot's Case ; Bank of Australasia v. Breillat Pickering v. The Ilfracombe Railway Co.
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.