In England and Massachusetts it has been held that if a man is bound by a contract to do a particular thing, and, while it is doubtful whether he will do it, a third person promises to pay him if he will do it, his performance will constitute a sufficient consideration for the third party's promise.19 It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile such a case with the general rule which we have stated, or to find any reason for such an exception. In this country the contrary has been generally held.20

128 Mass. 116; Osborne v. O'Reilly, 42 N. J. Eq. 467, 9 Atl. 209; Moore v. Locomotive Works, 14 Mich. 266; Goebel v. Linn, 47 Mich. 489, 11 N. W. 284, 41 Am. Rep. 723; Coyner v. Lynde, 10 Ind. 282; Cooke v. Murphy, 70 I11. 96 (but see Moran v. Peace, 72 I11. App. 135); Connelly v. Devoe, 37 Conn. 570; Lawrence v. Davey, 28 Vt. 264; Lattimore v. Harsen, 14 Johns. (N. T.) 330; Foley v. Storrie, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 377, 23 S. W. 442; Scanlon v. Northwood, 147 Mich. 139, 110 N. W. 493; Courtenay v. Fuller, 65 Me. 156. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 75, 237; Cent. Dig. §§ 273-285, 1119-1122.

18 Holmes, The Common Law, 301.

19 Shadwell v. Shadwell, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 159; Scotson v. Pegg, 6 Hurl. & N. 295; Abbott v. Doane, 1G3 Mass. 433, 40 N. E. 197, 34 L. R. A. 33, 47 Am. St Rep. 465; Cf. Grant v. Railway Co., 61 Minn. 395, 63 N. W. 1026. See 12 Harv. Law Rev. 520. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 74; Cent. Dig. §§ 831-343.

20 Johnson's Adm'r v. Sellers' Adm'r, 33 Ala. 265; Putnam v. Woodbury, 68 Me. 58; L'Amoreux v. Gould, 7 N. Y. 349, 57 Am. Dec. 524; Peelman v. Peelman, 4 Ind. 612; Merrick v. Giddings, 1 Mackey (12 D. C.) 394; Davenport v. Society, S3 Wis. 387; Gordon v. Gordon, 56 N. H. 170; Hanks v. Barron, 95