Where several promise to contribute to a common object, desired by all, the promise of each may be a good consideration for the promise of the others. (h) 1 If there be a chartered

(f) Holt v Ward Clarencieux. 2 Stra. 937 '; Hunt v. Peake, 5 Cowen, 475; Wil-lard v. Stone, 7 Cowen, 22; Cannon v. Alsbury, 1 A. K. Marsh. 78. - So an infant may maintain an action on a mercantile contract, although he would not he bound himself. Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & Sel. 205.

(g) Anslie v. Medlycott, 9 Ves. 14; Simson v. Jones, 2 Buss. & M. 365; Durn-ford v. Lane, 1 Bro. Ch. 111; Fonblanque, Eq. 74; and see ante, p. * 330.

(h) Society in Troy v. Perry, 6 N. H. 164; George v. Harris, 4 id. 533; Hanson v. Stetson, 5 Pick. 506; State Treasurer v. Cross, 9 Vt. 289; University of Vermont v. Buell, 2 Vt. 48; Commissioners v. Perry, 5 Hamm. 58; Ohio, etc. College v. Love, 16 Ohio, 20; Comstock v. Howd, 15 Mich. 237. - It is on this ground that subscriptions to charitable or benevolent objects have often been held binding, when there was no other consideration for each subscriber's promise than the promise of other subscribers. It must be confessed, however, that there are many authorities which seem to hold it necessary in such cases that there shall be some promise or engagement by the committee, corporation, or other person to whom the subscription paper runs, or that something should be done on their part, as the erection of the building, providing materials or the like, in order to render the subscription binding. The cases of Limerick Academy v. Davis, 11 Mass. 114; Bridgewater Academy v. Gilbert, 2 Pick. 579; Troy Academy v. Nelson, 24 Vt. 189; Gittings v. Mayhew, 6 Md.

113; Phipps v Jones, 20 Penn. St. 260; Barnes v. Ferine, 9 Barb. 202; Wilson v. Baptist Education Soc. 10 Barb. 309; Gait's Ex'rs v. Swain, 9 Gratt. 633; L'Amoreux v. Gould, 3 Seld. 349; and others favor this view. See also No. 42 Am. Jur. 281-283; Foxcroft Academy v. Favor, 4 Greenl. 382, n. (Bennett's ed.). This point was very fully discussed in the case of Trustees of Hamilton College v. Stewart, 2 Demo, 403; s. c. 1 N. Y. 581. It was there held, that the endowment of a literary institution is not a sufficient consideration to uphold a subscription to a fund designed for that object. And although there is annexed to the subscription a condition that the subscribers are not to be bound unless a given amount shall be raised, no request can be implied therefrom against the subscribers that the institution shall perform the services and incur the expenses necessary to fill up the subscription. Accordingly, where the defendant subscribed $800 to a fund for the payment of the salaries of the officers of Hamilton College, and a condition was annexed that the subscribers were not to be bound unless the aggregate amount of subscriptions and contributions should be $50,000; it was held, that there was no consideration for the undertaking, and that no action would lie upon it, although there was evidence tending to show that the whole amount had been subscribed or contributed according to the terms of the condition. But see Barnes v. Ferine, 12 N. Y. 23; Johnston v. Wabash College, 2 Cart. (lnd.) 555; Edinboro' Academy v. Dobinson, 37 Penn. St. 210.

1 In this country it has generally been held that the promise of one who subscribes money for charitable, religious, or other purposes is supported by a sufficient

* company or corporation, one who subscribes agreeably to the statute and by-laws acquires a right to his shares ; and consideration, but as to the nature of the consideration widely varying opinions have been expressed.

1. The commonest theory is that if the work for which the subscription was made has been begun or liability incurred in regard to it, the subscription thereupon becomes a binding contract. Miller v. Ballard, 46 III. 377 ; Trustees of M. E. Church v Garvey, 53 III. 401 ; Gittings v. Mayhew, 6 Md. 113; Cottage St. Church v. Kendall. 121 Mass. 528; Pitt v. Gentle, 49 Mo. 74; James v. Clough, 25 Mo. App. 147: Ohio, etc College v. Love's Exec, 16 Ohio St. 20. See also Richelieu Hotel ('<>. v. International Military Enc. Co., 29 Northeastern Rep. 1044 (III.); Johnson v. Otterbein University, 41 Ohio St. 527.

2. It has been held that if any acts whatever have been done or any liability incurred on the faith of the subscription it becomes binding. Des Moines Univ. v. Livingston, 57 Ia. 307, 65 la. 202; McCabe v. O'Connor, 69 la. 134.

According to these views the subscription is an offer until acts have been done or liability incurred, and consequently until that time may be withdrawn, and is revoked by the death or insanity of the subscriber. Pratt v. Baptist Society of Elgin, 93 III. 475; Beach v. First Methodist Church, 96 III. 177; Helfenstein's Estate, 77 Pa. 328. See also Reimensnyder v. Gans, 110 Pa. 17.

3. The rule is stated in Virginia thus: The subscription must be acceded to and the party apprised that his offer is accepted, and then if labor or money is expended on the faith of the subscription, it is binding. Gait's Exec. v. Swain, 9 Gratt. 633.

4. It has been suggested that the fact that others were led to subscribe is sufficient consideration. Hanson Trustees v. Stetson, 5 Pick. 506 ; Watkins v. Karnes. 9 Cush. 537; Ives v. Sterling, 6 Met. 310 (this doctrine was, however, repudiated in Cottage St. Church v. Kendall, 121 Mass. 528); Comstock v. Howd, 15 Mich. 237 (but see Northern, etc. R. R. v. Eslow, 40 Mich. 222).

5. A theory widely held is that the promise of each subscriber is supported by the promises of the others. Christian College v. Hendley, 49 Cal. 347; Higert v. Trustees of Indiana, etc. Univ. 53 Ind. 326 ; Petty v. Trustees of Church, 95 End. 278 ; Congregational Soc. in Troy v. Perry, 6 N. H. 164; Edinboro' Academy v. Dobinson, 37 Pa. 210.

6. The view last given is adopted in Nebraska with the qualification that the beneficiary must have expended labor or money or incurred obligation to render the subscriber liable. Homan v. Steele, 18 Neb. 652.