case law versus law Nov p will S c a bind give to pay money for procure the  office of collector of excise be within the stat Edward against sale of office  and fall within the reason of marriagebrocage bind wherefore decree it to be  deliver up to be cancel and perpetual injunction Edmund law the plaintiff late  husband give his elder brother a bind recite that whereas the say Edmund law  have be for many year a officer and supervisor of excise by the procurement of  his brother Richard law the defendant and that the say Richard law have  promise to use his utmost endeavour and interest to procure he to be advance  to the office of collector of the excise upon condition that the say Edmund  law shall pay to the say Richard law pound per and so long as he shall  continue supervisor his then office and pound per and as long as he shall be  collector the condition therefore be that if Edmund shall pay the say pound  and pound per and c Edmund law pay one sum of pound and die intestate and the  defendant Richard law bring a action upon the bind against the plaintiff the  widow and administratrix of Edmund and she thereupon bring her bill to set  aside this bind and to have the pound refund case tempt Talbot Lord chancellor  it be agree on all hand that this bind be good at law wherefore the  representative of the obligor be oblige to come hither for relief the general  head of relief go upon fraud and imposition of which there be nothing case  tempt Talbot er p suggest in the present case but the whole consideration  appear in the condition the question be whether this be such a bind as a court  of equity ought to relieve against this be but one agreement although respect  two period videlicet that of have obtain the office of supervisor and that of  procure the collectorship and then the condition be to pay two several sum it  relate to a office which be certain within the statute Edward for it concern  the king revenue and can be execute by deputy and nobody can say but that the  sale of office within that statute be a public mischief the legislature have  adjudge it to be so and although this be not direct a sale within the statute  yet it be in effect the same there be little or no difference between a  commissioner S take a sum of money and another person take it to influence the  commissioner the inconvenience be the same since thereby the person appoint be  deceive and so be the public and there be a very strong presumption that the  person so give be not duly qualify for the execution of the office and in this  very case it appear that the obligor be suspend the objection that this be a  penal law be not to be extend in equity be easy answer for though penal law be  not to be extend as to penalty and punishment yet if there be a public  mischief and a court of equity see private contract make to elude law enact  for the public good it ought to interpose here be a bind give for future act  as well as for such as be pass and which be the same as if give to a  commissioner for a direct sale and indeed have there be no precedent of the  same nature I shall have have courage enough to have make one in the present  case but I shall be abundant warrant by what case tempt Talbot the court have  do in case with in the same reason bind of resignation be not entire parallel  for the relieve or not relieve against they depend upon the use make of they  ex post facto Durston Sandys vern Hawkins v turner Prec in Chanc hesketh v  grey burn ecclesiastical law peel v the earl of Carlisle Sho bishop of London  v fitche bro Charles Rep in which case the illegality of general bind of  resignation be determine upon a appeal to the house of lord that may vide a  full report of this case with the argument of the judge in cunningham law of  simony and bind give in fraud of marriage be relieve against by reason of the  extortion and imposition which attend they as in the duke of Hamilton case  vern but marriage brocage bind fall direct within the reason of this case be  entire a voluntary act nor do the court interpose therein for the particular  damage to the party only but likewise from a public consideration marriage  great concern the public and it be no objection that the point of relieve  against they have be settle but late for it be settle upon very great  consideration and there be now many precedent of it if therefore in this and  the like case this court do interpose and regulate thing of a public nature as  in the case of a young heir enter into unreasonable contract during the life  of the parent why shall it not do the like in the case before we the  inconvenience of wink at such practice be plain and obvious to every man  understanding some case have be cite for the defendant none of which come up  to our present case as Laurence versus brazier Chan can where it do not at all  appear what the office be and the only question there be whether the party  shall pay for the time he be dispossess that of Beresford versus do vern I  have v ash Prec in Chanc S p relate to a commission in the army and no law  prohibit the sale of such no more than it do that of a purser of a ship which  be simmonds versus Gibbons vern with Purdy v Stacey burr that of Lockner  versus stride Chan can have nothing illegal in it for the payment be not to be  absolute but only in case the profit amount to pound or more beside the whole  profit belong to the sheriff himself that be but a reservation of what be his  right videlicet the profit of the office and in that of Bellamy versus burrow  the sole question be whether that office be capable of a trust so that none of  those case come near to the present one which case tempt Talbot be clear  within the mischief of Edward and therefore not to be endure and therefore  decree Harrington v Du chatel bro Charles Rep in which case a perpetual  injunction be grant against a bind for the purchase of a office upon the  public policy of the law and be similar to marriagebrocage bind although the  office be admit not to be within the stat of of Edward morris v MCullock Ambl  Rep Dehenham v ox Ves Bac Abr the bind to be cancel and a perpetual injunction  Reg lib a fol case tempt Talbot er p