Sec 521

But where an unliquidated debt is liquidated, and a new promise is made to pay the sum thus assessed, a release of the unliquidated claim is a sufficient consideration to sustain the new promise.6 And a payment of a smaller sum in hand may be a sufficient consideration for the discharge of a larger unliquidated sum.7 - As a general rule a reconstruction of an old agreement is a sufficient consideration for the new agreement which the reconstruction contains.8

Sec 522

One and the same consideration may support several successive promises, or several promises to distinct persons.9 sec 523. As has been already incidentally observed, and as will be hereafter noticed in detail, a promise is a sufficient consideration for a promise. And when promises are thus mutually dependent, either can be sued on by the party to whom the promise is made, supposing him to be in no default.1 Each party, in such case, must be bound, as otherwise there is no mutuality, and no contract;2 though, as we will presently see, an obligation may be contingent.3 As illustrations of promises thus made in consideration of each other may be mentioned marriage promises;4 promises of exchange of work;5 promises of sale and purchase;6 promises to transfer and to accept unpaid shares in a railroad company;7 promises to receive a partner on consideration of becoming a partner.8 - Promises thus to sustain each other must be simultaneous. If one has been executed by reception of the thing promised, it takes the shape of a benefit received, and is not, therefore, a good consideration. The promises, to sustain each other, must be interdependent. It does not follow from this, however, that the promises must take their origin at the same time. One may have been made a long time ago, the other may have been made only a few moments since. All that is necessary is that they should be renewed and reaffirmed at the time of the inception of the contract. "I will promise to do a particular thing if you will promise to do a certain other thing." If this be agreed to by the party addressed, there is a contract. There would be no contract, however, if one party should say, "because some time ago you promised to do a particular thing, I now promise to do the other thing."1 - Promises, therefore, to thus lend support to each other, must be reciprocally dependent. "When forming an oral contract, they must be simultaneous. If one promise is not made until the other is complete, one is not the consideration for the other, even though they were made on the same day.2 If made in a written correspondence, the acceptance must be conditioned on the proposal.3 They must therefore be, in the eye of the law, made at the same moment of time, as otherwise both will be without consideration. If one is a nullity, the other falls. - The promise, also, relied on as a consideration must be legally effective.4 "A promise may be a good consideration for a promise; as a promissory note or acceptance for another promissory note or acceptance. But the promise which shall form a valid consideration must be such a one as the promisee may have in hand to enforce by law."5 It may be said, in answer to this, that an infant is not bound on his contract, yet such contract may bind those contracting with him. But an infant's contracts are not void, since he may ratify them when of full age, or waive the defence of infancy.6 Such promises, also, must be to do a possible thing, since an impossible promise is a nullity,7 and so is an illegal promise.8 Absolute capacity to perform is not necessary, since, if it were, few promises would be good. What is requisite is such a chance of performance as the other contracting party may find it worth while to purchase.9 As has already been seen, the concessions which form part of the reconstruction of an old agreement may form the consideration of a new contract.10

Release of unliquidated debt a sufficient consideration for promise to pay specific sum.

One consideration may support several promises.

Promise may support promise.

1 Alison's case, L. R. 9 Ch. 24; supra, sec 135 et seq.

2 Infra, sec 744; Jones v. Ryde, 5 Taunt. 488; Gurney v. Womersley, 4 E. & B. 133; Westropp v. Solomon, 8 C. B. 345.

3 Supra, sec 282 et seq.; infra, sec 746; Tillotson v. Grapes, 4 N. H. 448; Vaughan v. Porter, 16 Vt. 266; Dickinson v. Hall, 14 Pick. 217; Hotch-kiss v. Judd, 12 Allen, 447; Chapman v. Brooklyn, 40 N. Y. 372; Davis p. McVickers, 11 m. 327; Wharton v. O'Hara, 2 Nott & McC. 65.

4 Infra, sec 749; supra, sec 282, 519; Erwin v. Parkham, 12 How. 97; Forbes v. Appleton, 5 Cush. 117; Lamert v. Heath, 15 M. & W. 487. 5 Infra, sec 748.

6 Infra, sec 937, 1000; Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 A. & E. 106.

7 Longridge v. Dorville, 5 B. & Ald. 117; Palmerton v. Huxford, 4 Denio, 166; Howard v. Norton, 65 Barb. 161. For other cases, see infra, sec 937, 1000.

8 Infra, sec 858 et seq.; supra, sec 505, 533; Cutter v. Cochrane, 116 Mass. 408; Rollins v. Marsh, 128 Mass. 116; Brown v. Everhard, 52 Wis. 205.

9 Leake, 614; citing Harris v. Ven-ables, L. R. 7 Ex. 235.

1 Wilkinson v. Byers, 1 A. & E. 106; Steinman v. Magnus, 11 East, 390; Bolton v. Madden, L. R. 9 Q,. B. 55; Phillips v. Preston, 5 How. U. S. 278; Appleton v. Chase, 19 Me. 74; Dockray v. Dunn, 37 Me. 442; Rohinson v. Batchelder, 4 N. II. 40; Quarles v. George, 23 Pick. 401; Burr v. Wilcox, 13 Allen, 269; Cottage St. Ch. p. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528; Tucker v. Woods, 12 John. 120; Briggs v. Sizer, 30 N. Y. 647; Coleman v. Eyre, 45 N. Y. 38; Giles v. Ackles, 9 Barr, 147; Kiester v. Miller, 25 Penn. St. 481; Carrier v. Dilworth, 59 Penn. St. 406; Watkins v. Hodges, 6 Har. & J. 38; Funk v. Hough, 29 111. 145; Colgin v. Henley, 6 Leigh, 85; Whitehead v. Potter, 4.

Ired. 257; Martin v. Black, 20 Ala. 309; Hartzell v. Saunders, 49 Mo. 433; see Holmes's Common Law, 305.

2 Hopkins v. Logan, 5 M. & W. 241; Dorsey v. Packwood, 12 How. 126; Ewins v. Gordon, 49 N. H. 444; supra, sec 2.

3 Infra, sec 524, 549.

4 Wightman v. Coates, 15 Mass. 1; Willard v. Stone, 7 Cow. 22; infra, sec 537.

5 Davis v. Petit, 27 Vt. 216.

6 Appleton v. Chase, 19 Me. 74; infra, sec 549.

7 Cheale v. Kenward, 3 De G. & J. 27.

8 McNeill v. Reid, 9 Bing. 68.