orally agree to sign the composition, and the others thereupon sign, and then he refuses to do so, he is nevertheless bound.1

A creditor may insist upon any condition before affixing his signature, and such conditions must be literally fulfilled before the release takes effect.2 And if the debtor fails to fulfill the condition as to one creditor, all the creditors are released from their obligations, though they have accepted their percentage. If the creditors sign upon the condition that their agreement shall be void unless all the creditors take the same percentage, the debtor must procure the signatures of all creditors, secured and unsecured, however large or small their claims may be.1 Any misrepresentation by the debtor as to the amount of his indebtedness or his assets will avoid the composition.5 The creditors are entitled to the fullest disclosure of the state of his affairs. So of a false statement to one that all the others have promised to sign if he will; or that the others have accepted his terms.

6

§ 2253. Forbearance to Sue. The waiver of a legal right is a sufficient consideration for a promise made on

their claims by the other creditors had no connection with the agreement. The agreement itself shows no legal consideration to give it effect as a contract."

Mellen v. Goldsmith, 47 Wis. 573; 32 Am. Rep. 781.

2 Magee v. Mast, 49 Cal. 141; Warburg v. Wilcox, 2 Hilt. 118.

3 Greer v. Shriver, 53 Pa. St. 259; Shipton v. Casson, 5 Barn. & C. 378; Garrat v. Woolner, 8 Bing. 258; Wenhun v. Fowle, 3 Dowl. 43; Rosling v. Muggeridge, 16 Mees. & W. 181; Evans v. Powis, I Ex. 601; Culter v. Reynold, 8 B. Mon. 509; Makepeace v. Harvard College, 10 Pick. 298; Penniman v. Elliott, 27 Barb. 315; Dauchy v. Goodrich, 20 Vt. 127.

Kinsing v. Bartholomew, 1 Dill. 155; Paulin v. Kaighn, 27 N. J, L. 503;

Durgin v. Ireland, 14 N. Y. 322; Acker v. Phoenix, 4 Paige, 305; Spooner v. Whiston, 8 Moore, 580.

5 Kahn v. Roberts, 9 Ind. 430; Droon v. Smith, 17 Ind. 172; Stafford v. Bacon, 1 Hill, 532; 37 Am. Dec. 366; 25 Wend. 384; Dolson v. Arnold, 10 How. Pr. 528; Huntington v. Clark, 39 Conn. 540; Seving v. Cole, 28 Ind. 486; Carter v. Connell, 1 Whart. 392; Jackson v. Hodges, 24 Md. 468; Elfert v. Snow, 2 Saw. 94; Armstrong v. Bank, 6 Biss. 520.

Hefter v. Cahn, 73 Ill. 296; O'Shea v. White Lead Co., 42 Mo. 397; 97 Am. Dec. 332.

Cooling v. Noyes, 6 Term Rep. 263. 8 Whiteside v. Hyman, 17 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 218; Bartlett v. Blaine, 83 Ill. 25; 25 Am. Rep. 346. Compare Argall v. Cook, 43 Conn. 160.

3

account of the waiver.' Forbearance of legal proceedings by a person entitled to sue is a valid consideration for a promise, even where the forbearance is as to the debt of a third person, or although the defendant might have prevailed in the suit; and an extension of time for the payment of a debt, or the performance of an agreement, forms a sufficient consideration to support a contract.5 Thus a composition of a prosecution for bastardy is a sufficient consideration to support a promissory note. Withdrawing opposition by a debtor to bankruptcy proceedings, and consenting to amendments and an adjudication of bankruptcy, is sufficient as a consideration to support a valid agreement. Giving time for the payment of a judgment is a good consideration for a note given by the defendant to the plaintiff's attorney for his fees. An agreement to postpone the sale of mortgaged premises for four months after an order or decree of sale is a good consideration for a promissory note from a party claiming the premises, and his sureties. A

1 Vogel v. Meyer, 23 Mo. App. 427. Hockenbury v. Meyers, 34 N. J. L. 346; Tuttle v. Bigelow, 1 Root, 108; 1 Am. Dec. 35; Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. 568; 4 Am. Dec. 477; Sage v. Wilcox, 6 Conn. 81; Silvis v. Ely, 3 Watts & S 420; Robinson v. Gould, 11 Cush. 55; Vinal v. Richardson, 13 Allen, 521; Abbott v. Fisher, 124 Mass. 414; Rood v. Jones, 1 Doug. 188; Martin v. Black, 20 Ala. 309; Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320; 24 Am. Rep. 593; Sanford v. Huxford; 32 Mich. 313; 20 Am. Rep. 647; Newton v. Carson, 80 Ky. 309; Ford v. Rehman, Wright, 434; Miller v. Hawker, 66 Ill. 185; Snell v. Bray, 56 Wis. 156; Scott v. Warner, 3 Lans. 49; Beadle v. Whillock, 64 Barb. 287; Spangle v. Springer, 22 Pa. St. 454; Keeler v. Salisbury, 27 Barb. Collins v. Barnes, 83 Pa. St. 15.

485;

3 Jennison v. Stafford, 1 Cush. 168; 48 Am. Dec. 594; Brice v. Clark, 8 Pa. St. 301; Cook v. Duval, 9 Gill, 460.

Flannagan v. Kilcome, 58 N. H. 443; Hund v. Geier, 72 Ill. 393.

5 Underwood v. Hossack, 38 Ill. 208; Raymond v. Smith, 5 Conn. 555; Leamester v. Burckhart, 2 Bibb, 25; Boyd v. Freize, 5 Gray, 553; Lowe ". Weatherly, 4 Dev. & B. 212; Ford v. Rehman, Wright, 434; Bank of Muskingham v. Carpenter, Wright, 729; Nicholson v. May, Wright, 669; Silvis v. Ely, 3 Watts & S. 429; Watson v. Randall, 20 Wend. 201; Clark v. Russell, 3 Watts, 213; 27 Am. Dec. 348. Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Pa. 385; 21 Am. Dec. 387; Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. 506; 4 Am. Dec. 477; Allen v. Morgan, 5 Humph. 624; Templeton v. Bascom, 33 Vt. 132; Hill v. Smith, 34 Vt. 535.

6 Ashburne v. Gibson, 9 Port. 549; Coleman v. Frum, 4 Ill. 378; Abshire r. Mather, 27 Ind. 381; Thompson v. Nelson, 28 Md. 431; Clarke v. McFarland, 5 Dana, 45.

Sanford v. Huxford, 32 Mich. 313; 20 Am. Rep. 647.

Brainard v. Harris, 14 Ohio, 107; 45 Am. Dec. 525.

Hancock v. Hodgson, 4 Ill. 329.

release of an attachment lien or an agreement to stay an execution is a good consideration for a promise by a third person to pay the debt, or by the debtor to pay the debt. of another. Forbearance to eject a tenant at will for nonpayment of rent is a good consideration to a guarantor of past and future rent. The withdrawal of exceptions and dismissing a suit are sufficient consideration for an agreement, although they were not well founded."

5

A general forbearance is presumed to be a perpetual forbearance, but a forbearance for a time is a sufficient consideration. The promise cannot be enforced where the forbearance is general, if the original debtor be subsequently sued.' Mere forbearance to sue without any agreement to that effect is not a sufficient consideration for the promise of another to pay the debt of the person liable, although the act of forbearance was induced by such promise. An agreement made by the holder of a promissory note not to sue on the note for a limited time is no bar to a suit brought before the expiration of the time given. In order to constitute a valid contract of forbearance of suit, it is necessary that it should be definite and certain as to the terms of forbearance and the period of it. The future forbearance by the depositors of a banker can form no consideration for an absolute agreement by guarantors to pay the depositors, made without reference to such forbearance."

10

There must be a legal cause of action," though it is

'Smith v. Weed, 20 Wend. 184; 32 Am. Dec. 525; Stern v. Drinker, 2 E. D. Smith, 403.

2 Giles v. Ackles, 9 Pa. St. 147; 49 Am. Dec. 551.

3 Vinal v. Richardson, 13 Allen, 521. Byrne v. Cummings, 41 Miss. 192. Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Penr. & W. 383; 21 Am. Dec. 387; Clark v. Russell, 3 Watts, 213; 27 Am. Dec. 348.

Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Penr. & W. 383; 21 Am. Dec. 387.

Manter v. Churchill, 127 Mass. 31. Thalman v. Barbour, 5 Ind. 178. 10 Garnett v. Kirkman, 33 Miss. 389. 11 Steadman v. Guthrie, 4 Met. 147. 12 Palfrey v. R. R. Co., 4 Allen, 55; Sidwell v. Evans, 1 Penr. & W. 383; 21 Am. Dec. 387; New Hampshire Sav. Inst. v. Colcord, 15 N. H. 119; 41 Am. Dec. 685; Newell v. Fisher, 11 Smedes & M. 431; 49 Am. Dec. 66; 0. & C. R. R. Co. v. Potter, 5 Or. 228; Cline v. Templeton, 78 Ky. 550; Mar

Clark v. Russel, 3 Watts, 213; 27 tin v. Black, 20 Ala. 309. ForbearAm. Dec. 348. ance to contest probate of a will is not

3

held that giving up a suit instituted to try a question respecting which the law is doubtful, or is supposed by the parties to be doubtful, is a good consideration for a promise.1 And forbearing to sue for or releasing a bona fide claim, respecting which a reasonable doubt exists in fact or in law, although no proceedings have been commenced, is a good consideration. And though a court of law will not enforce a bare equity, the forbearance to enforce one is a sufficient consideration. But an executory promise to pay a sum of money to be released from a bargain which is void by the statute of frauds is without consideration and void. The mere existence of a controversy which has not assumed the form of a pending suit is not necessarily a sufficient consideration for a contract of compromise. The dismissal of suits palpably unjust forms no consideration for a promise. To make the settlement of assumed rights a sufficient consideration, there must be at least an appearance of right suf ficient to raise a possible doubt in favor of the party asserting the claim."

§ 2254. Incurring Legal Liability for Another. — If a person incur a liability, at the request of another, as by entering into a contract with a third party, such liability is a sufficient consideration to support a promise by the person at whose request it is incurred."

a consideration where there were no reasonable grounds on which to base a contest: Prater v. Miller, 25 Ala. 320; 60 Am. Dec. 521.

Longridge v. Dorville, 5 Barn. & Ald. 117; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & E. 309; Atlee v. Backhouse, 3 Mees. & W. 633; Ex parte Lucy. 4 De Gex, M. & G. 356; 22 L. J. C. 732; Orrell v. Coppock, 26 L. J. C. 269; Pierce v. N. O. Building Co., 9 La. 397; 29 Am. Dec. 448; Adams v. Wilson, 12 Met. 138; 45 Am. Dec. 240; Weed v. Terry, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 344; 45 Am. Dec. 257. 2 Cook v. Wright, 1 Best & S. 559. Noblet v. Green, 2 Dev. 517; 21 Am. Dec. 347.

Silvernail v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680. 5 Ware v. Morgan, 67 Ala. 461. 6 Long v. Towl, 42 Mo. 545; 97 Am. Dec. 355; Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294; 97 Ám. Dec. 615.

Skidmore v. Bradford, L. R. 8 Eq. 134; Mound City etc. Ass'n v. Slauson, 65 Cal. 425; Callahan v. Linthicum, 43 Md. 97; 20 Am. Rep. 106. "Where a person is under a legal obligation to pay money, and another pays it for him without request, the law raises an implied assumpsit to refund, without any express promise on his part": McMorris v. Herndon, 2 Bail. 56; 21 Am. Dec. 515,

§ 2255. Marriage as a Consideration. — Marriage is considered a valuable consideration between the parties to the marriage, and will support a contract made in consideration of it; as a contract of mutual promises to marry;' and marriage is a sufficient consideration to support a promise by a third party to the husband or wife." Thus a promise to convey land in consideration of the plaintiff's marrying the defendant's niece is binding.3 The promise of an infant to marry is a good consideration for a corresponding promise. But expectation on the part of the promisee that the promisor would marry her is not a sufficient consideration for a promise.

§ 2256. Consideration Partly Void. Where the consideration in a contract consists of several matters and is partly void, if any valid considerations remains, it is, in general, sufficient to support the promise; as where part of the stated consideration is impossible, or unintelligible, or immaterial, it may be rejected, and the promise supported by that which is valid. But where any part of the consideration is illegal, it generally renders the whole transaction illegal, and the promise induced in any degree by such consideration is wholly void." But if the promise be divisible, and apportionable to the several parts of the consideration, the promise, so far as not attributable to the illegal consideration, is valid.

1 Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 9; 22 Am. Dec. 603.

2 Shadwell v. Shadwell, 9 Com. B., N. S., 159; Chichester v. Vass, 1 Munf. 98; 4 Am. Dec. 531; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill, 138; 43 Am. Dec. 306; Gurvin v. Cromartie, 11 Ired. 174; 53 Am. Dec. 406; Wall v. Scales, 1 Dev. Eq. 472; Scott v. Osborne, 2 Munf. 413.

3 Barr v. Hill, Add. Ecc. 276. Willard v. Stone, 7 Cow. 22; 17 Am. Dec. 496.

Raymond v. Sellick, 10 Conn. 480.