INDEMNITY. That which is given to a person to prevent his suffering damage. Peck v. Wakely, 2 McCord (S. C.) 279.
It is a rule established in all just govern ments that when private property is required for public use, indemnity shall be given by the public to the owner. See EMINENT Da MAN.
Contracts made for the purpose of indem nifying a person for doing an act for which he could be indicted, or to compensate a pub lic officer for doing an act which is forbid den by law, or for omitting to do one which the law commands, are absolutely void. But when the agreement with an officer was not to induce him to neglect his duty, but to test a legal right, as to indemnify him for not executing a writ of execution, it was held to be good ; 1 Bouvier, Inst. n. 780.
In general, a mere promise of indemnity to a third person is not within the statute of frauds ; [1894] 2 Q. B. 885, 19 L. R. Eq. 198; George v. Hoskins (Ky.) 30 S.
W. 406; Boyer v. Soules, 105 Mich. 31, 62 N. W. 1000; and this rule applies to a promise to indemnify the surety on a liq uor-dealer's bond; Smith v. Delaney, 64 Conn. 264, 29 Atl. 496, 42 Am. St. Rep. 181; to a contract of agency, by which the agent agrees to be responsible for the non payment of debts which may thereafter be come due by others; 69 L. T. N. S. 354; to a promise to indemnify one if he will indorse K.'s notes, so that K. can have them dis counted ; Jones v. Bacon, 145 N. Y. 446, 40 N. E. 216 ; and to a verbal promise of A B to indemnify him if he will become surety for C for a debt of the latter to D ; Minick v. Huff, 41 Neb. 516, 59 N. W. 795. But it is held in Illinois, that a guarantee of in demnity to a surety is within the statute ; Waterman v. Pesseter, 45 Ill. App. 155. See GUARANTY; SURETYSHIP; INSURANCE.