
    Vincent vs. Ashley.
    A champerlous agreement made by one of the complainants for the others to prosecute the suit, affects the interest of all. The suit is an entire thing, and being tainted by • champerty as to the interest of one, must be dismissed.
    James, William and Francis Ashley having a claim upon slaves in the possession of Vincent, engaged the complainant James to attend to the prosecution of a suit for the recovery of the slaves in their joint names. James engaged Rogers to attend to the prosecution of the suit on an agreement to receive one third of the slaves if he should succeed in the recovery of them'.
    A bill was accordingly filed against him, and during the pen-dency of said suit, this bill was filed against the complainants, charging a champertous agreement. William and Francis answered, and- denied any knowledge of such agreement, and stated that the management of the suit had been intrusted to the defendant James.
    The records do not show how this case was brought into the Supreme Court.
    
      Totten, for complainant.
    
      Fitzgerald and Gibbs, for defendants.
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

A bill was filed by the defendants against the complainant in the county of Weakley, to recover certain slaves in his possession and claimed by them; whereupon this bill was filed, charging a champertous agreement between the Ashleys and one J. Rogers, by which he (Rogers,) in consideration of a portion of the property to be recovered, undertook to commence and prosecute the suit against him, and asks that it be dismissed.

That the champertous agreement charged was entered into, and that this suit was in pursuance thereof commenced and prosecuted by the defendant Rogers, is not controverted, but admitted in the answer.

It is however contended, that the contract was entered into between James Ashley and J. Rogers without the knowledge of the other two claimants, and that their right to recover is not to be prejudiced thereby,

It appears from the answers, that James Ashley was appointed agent by his co-defendants to take the proper steps to recover the negroes in controversy, and as a means of doing so, made the champertous contract with J. Rogers; and the question is, whether this taints the whole suit, or only so much of it as affects his interest therein. We are constrained to say that it extends to the whole. We cannot divide and separate the interests of the parties, in the manner proposed. The suit is an entire thing, commenced in violation of express law, and under a contract made by-one of the parties for and on behalf of himself and the others. But for the fact, that the suit has been so long depending that the statute of limitations is now a bar to further proceedings, we apprehend the distinction now sought to be taken would not have been thought of. The fact, that the statute operates as a bar, can make no difference in the action of the court upon this subject. The suit was illegally commenced, and we are bound to dismiss it. Let it be done.  