Can a plaintiff maintain a commission under the contract?

In Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., 3 Q.B.D. 549, it appears that the defendants contracted to pay the plaintiff a commission for superintending repairs to be executed by them on certain ships belonging to the Great Eastern R. Co. The plaintiff, at the time of such contract being made, was in a position of trust in relation to the railway company, having been employed by them, as an engineer, to advise them as to the repairs, and the contract between the defendants and the plaintiff was made, in part, in consideration of a promise that the plaintiff would use his influence with the railway company to induce them to accept the defendants’ tender for the repairs of the ships. The jury found that the contract, though calculated to bias the mind of the plaintiff had not, in fact, done so; and that he had not, in consequence thereof, given less beneficial advice to the company as to the defendants’ tender than he would otherwise have done. Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain an action for commission under the contract on the ground that, although the plaintiff had not been induced to act corruptly, the consideration for the contract was corrupt.