A forbearance of any legal right may be a consideration.1

4 Barley v. Buell, 70 Cal. 335, 11 Pac. 632.

Additional work is a consideration for a promise to pay an invalid assessment. Bernstein v. Downs, 112 CaL 197, 44 Pac. 557.

A promise by employees of a subcontractor to continue work is a consideration for the promise of the contractor to pay them. McDonald v. Fer-nald, 68 N. H. 171, 38 Atl. 729.

So where a partner who purchases the entire business makes a similar promise to one who was working for the old firm. Franks v. Stevens, 82 Mich. 192, 46 N. W. 369.

The agent's maintaining an additional office is' consideration for a promise of his principal to pay a specified amount for office expenses, including rent. Keck v. Michigan Quartz Silica Co., 158 Wis. 500, 149 N. W. 208.

5 Crosby v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. (Mo.), 189 S. W. 596.

6 Barry v. Colville, 129 N. Y. 302, 29 N. E. 307.

7 Stahl v. Van VJeck, 53 O. S. 136, 41 N. E. 35 (though it is not operated).

8 Osmundson v. Thompson, 90 la. 755, 57 N. W. 863.

9 Muscatine Waterworks Co. v. Lumber Co., 85 la. 112, 39 Am. St. Rep. 284,

52 N. W. 108; Harsky v. Water Co., 13 Mont. 229, 33 Pac. 689.

10 Chicago, etc., Co. v. Lake, 130 111. 42, 22 N. E. 616.

11 City Railway Co. v. Ry. Co., 166 U. S. 557, 41 L. ed. 1114.

12Cincinnati v. Ry. Co., 2 Ohio Dec 468.

13 Pellizzarro v. ReppeTt, 83 la. 497, 50 N. W. 19; Taylor v. Crockett, 123 Mo. 300, 27 S. W. 620; Campbell v. McLaughlin, - Mo. - , 205 S. W. 18; Brown v. Taylor, 174 N. Car. 423, L. R. A. 1918B, 293, 93 S. E. 982; Lytle v. Ramp, 88 Or. 505, 172 Pac. 503.

14 Buell v. Adams, 157 Mich. 248, 121 N. W. 752; Brown v. Taylor, 174 N. Car. 423, L. R. A. 1918B, 293, 93 S. E. 982.

15Lytle v. Ramp, 88 Or. 505, 172 Pac. 503.

1 Arkansas. Brinkley Car Works & Mfg. Co. v. Cook, 110 Ark. 325, 161 S. W. 1065.

Michigan. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co. v. "Owosso Sugar Co., 192 Mich. 533, 159 N. W. 378.

Minnesota. Bank v. Beecher, 133 Minn. 81, 157 N. W. 1070.

North Carolina. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. McNair, 139 N. Car. 326, 51 S. E. 949.

The right forborne is usually a legal right to property of some sort, either in possession or in action.2 A discharge of a prior contract;3 a discharge of a note;4 a release of a guarantor's right to sue the maker of the note;5 a release of a pre-existing debt,6 especially if secured;7 release of liability on a bond; 8 release from a valid contract to marry;9 and A's assistance to B in effecting the sale of a department of B's store and A's release of his right to commisa Fisher v.. Skinner, 112.Ark. 190, 164 S. W. 735.

Oklahoma. Hays v. Smith, - Okla. - , 164 Pac. 470.

Vermont Ballard v. Burton, 64 Vt. 387, 16 L. R. A. 664, 24 Atl. 769.

Washington. Nicholson v. Neary, 77 Wash. 294, 137 Pac. 492.

2 See Sec. 543.

4 United States. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Wright, 106 Fed. 156, 44 C. C. A. 421.

California. Scribner v. Hanke, 116 Cal. 613, 48 Pac. 714; Hart v. Church, 126 Cal. 471, 77 Am. St. Rep. 196, 58 Pac. 910; Whelan v. Swain, 132 Cal. 389, 64 Pac. 560.

Illinois. Post v. Bank, 138 III. 559, 28 N. E. 978; First National Bank v. Tile Works, 91 111. App. 116.

Massachusetts. Wooley v. Cobb, 166 Mass. 503, 43 N. E. 497.

Ohio. Judy v. Louderman, 48 O. S. 562, 29 N. E. 181.

Tennessee. First National Bank v. Reid (Tenn. Ch. App.), 58 S. W. 1124.

Wisconsin. Union, etc., Bank v. Jefferson, 101 Wis. 452, 77 N. W. 889.

5Ditmar v. West, 7 Ind. App. 637, 35 N. E. 47.

6 Alabama. Hunt v. Johnson, 96 Ala. 130, 11 So. 387.

Arkansas. Bevens v. Barnett (Ark.), 22 S. W. 160.

California. Hart v. Church, 126 Cal. 471, 77 Am. St. Rep. 195, 58 Pac. 910.

Georgia. Sutton v. Ford, 144 Ga. 587, 87 S. E. 799.

Indiana. Pope v. Vajen, 121 Ind. 317, 6 L. R. A. 686, 22 N. E. 308.

Iowa. Reed v. Brown, 89 la. 454, 48 Am. St. Rep. 406, 56 N. W. 661.

Louisiana. Levert v. Hebert, 51 La. Ann. 222,25 So. 118.

Massachusetts. Spaulding v. Ken-drick, 172 Mass. 71, 51 N. E. 453.

Michigan. Hanold v. Kays, 64 Mich. 439, 8 Am. St. Rep. 835, 31 N. W. 420; Hilbert v. Barry, 111 Mich. 698, 70 N. W. 318.

Missouri. Lancaster v. Elliott, 55 Mo. App. 249; Decocq v. Decocq, 69 Mo. App. 558/ New Hampshire. O'Dowd v. Elliott, 77 N. H. 319, 91 Atl. 872.

New York. Lamkin v. Palmer, 164 N. Y. 201, 58 N. E. 123.

Oregon. Denny v. Bean, 51 Or. 180, 93 Pac. 693 [modified on rehearing, 51 Or. 180, 94 Pac. 503J.

A release of part of premiums due a loan association is a consideration for release of a claim for usurious interest paid in. International, etc., Association v. Fortassaln (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. 496.

7Cahill v. Smith, 9 Ohio C. C. 4.

8 Booth v. Dexter Steam Fire Engine Co., 118 Ala. 369, 24 So. 405; Court Valhalla v. Olson, 14 Colo. App. 243, 59 Pac. 883 (though made payable to the state instead of the real obligee). As the discharge of a bond, though unenforceable because not returned for taxation. Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716, 27 S. E. 583.

9 Henderson v. Spratlen, 44 Colo. 278, 98 Pac. 14.

sions from sales in such department under a former contract with B,10 are all considerations. A prior debt for the purchase price is consideration for a contract that the title shall remain in the seller.11 An agreement by A, an attorney, to release B from a debt due from B to A, and to collect certain debts due to B if possible, is a consideration for B's assignment to A of one-sixth of the amount collected.12 The release of a right to buy property under a prior contract is sufficient consideration for a subsequent promise.13 The release by the promisee of a claim against a third person is a sufficient consideration.14 A's promise to release his claim against X is a consideration for B's promise to release his claim against X, if such is the actual agreement of the parties.15 Omission by a creditor to file his claim against decedent's estate is consideration for the promise of the executor to pay such debt personally in consideration of such creditor's not pressing such claim.16