Although courts of law will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration, they will insist that it shall not be illusory or unreal.

50 SCHNELL v. NELL, 17 Ind. 29, 79 Am. Dec. 453, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 103. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 53; Cent. Dig. §§ 231, 232.

51 Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Ves. 234; Conrad v. Schwamb, 53 Wis. 378, 10 N. W. 395; Conaway v. Sweeney, 24 W. Va. 643; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 U. S. 457, 10 Sup. Ct. 655, 34 L. Ed. 200; Watson v. Doyle, 130 111. 415, 22 N. E. 613; Eaton, Eq. 539. In some states an adequate consideration is required by statute. Morrill v. Everson, 77 Cal. 114, 19 Pac. 190. See "Specific Performance;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 49, 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 140-152.

52 Gifford v. Thorn, 9 N. J. Eq. 702; Grindrod v. Wolf, 3S Kan. 292, 16 Pac. 691; Bowman v. Patrick (C. C.) 36 Fed. 138; Cofer v. Moore, 87 Ala. 705, 6 South. 306; Burke v. Taylor, 94 Ala. 530, 10 South. 129. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430; "Evidence," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 419; Cent. Dig. §§ 1912-1928.

53 Phillips v. Pullen, 45 N. J. Eq. 5, 16 Atl. 9; Jones v. Degge, 84 Va. 685, 5 S. E. 799; Dent v. Ferguson, 132 U. S. 50, 10 Sup. Ct 13, 33 L. Ed. 242; Berry v. Hall, 105 N. C. 154, 10 S. E. 903; Brockway v. Harrington, S2 Iowa, 23, 47 N. W. 1013; Miles v. Iron Co., 125 N. Y. 294, 26 N. E. 261; Bierne v. Ray, 37 W. Va. 571, 16 S. E 804; Eaton, Eq. 307. And see the cases cited in the preceding note. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 94; Cent. Dig. §§ 420-430.

Strictly speaking, what we call an "unreal consideration" is no consideration at all, but this use of the term cannot well mislead. To understand what the law regards as a real and what as an unreal consideration, it will be well to inquire into the various forms which consideration may assume, and to note the grounds upon which certain alleged considerations have been held to be of no real value in the eye of the law.