78Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99, 9 L. Ed. 60; Sheppey v. Stevens, 185 Fed. 147; Mason v. Wilson, 43 Ark. 172, 177; Kress v. Moscow-its, 105 Ark. 638, 152 S. W. 298; B. & W. Engineering Co. v. Beam, 23 Cal. App. 164, 137 Pac. 624. (See also Gardner v. Wsteon, 170 Cal. 570, 150 Pac. 994. Cf. Pacific Bye. Advertising Co. v. Carr, 29 Cal. App. 722, 157 Pac. 529); Baldwin v. Central Savings Bank, 17 Col. App. 7, 67 Pac. 179; In re Thomas, 85 Conn. 50, 81 Atl. 972; Morris v. Munroe, 30 Ga. 630; Dickerson v. Dic-keraon, 19 Ga. App. 269, 91 S. E. 346; Hayes p. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 125 111. 626, 639, 18 N. E. 322, 1 L. R. A. 303; Ostrander v. Scott, 161 111. 339, 43 N. E. 1089; Murphy v. Murphy, 84 111. App. 292 (cf. Herbert v. Mueller, 83 111. App. 391); Melcber v Ins. Co., 97 Me. 512, 55 Atl. 411; Proubti. Pittsfield Fire District, 154 Mass. 450, 28 N. E. 679; Dunbar v. Duifbar, 180 Mass. 170, 62 N. E. 248, 94 Am. St. Rep. 623, affd. 190 U. S. 340 47 L. Ed. 1084; Blount v. Dillaway, 99 Mass. 330, 85 N. E. 477,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1036; Layer v. Layer, 184 Mich. 663, 151 N. W. 759; Kelley v. Hopkins, 108 Minn. 155, 117 N. W. 396; Dailey v. King, 79 Mich.

568, 44 N. W. 959; Leeson v. Anderson, 99 Mich. 247, 58 N. W. 72, 41 Am.'st. Rep. 597; Demars v. Musser-Sauntry Co., 37 Minn. 418; 35 N. W. 1; Hansen v. Gaar Scott ft Co., 63 Minn. 94, 65 N. W. 254; (cf. Anderson p. Nystrom, 103 Minn. 168, 114 N. W. 742, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1141, 123 Am. St. Rep. 320]; Musser v. Musser, 92 Neb. 387, 138 N. W. 599; Majors v, Majors, 92 Neb. 473, 138 N. W. 574; Latulippe v. New England Investment Co., 77 N. H. 31, 86 Atl. 361; Grandin v. Grandin, 49 N. J. L. 508, 9 Atl. 756, 60 Am. Rep. 642; Wahl v. Baroum, 116 N. Y. 87, 22 N. E. 280, 5 L. R. A. 623; Zoebisch v. VonMinden, 120 N. Y. 406, 24 N. E. 795; Sears v. Grand Lodge, 163 N. Y. 374,379,57 N. E. 618, SOL. R. A. 204; Post v. Thomas, 212 N. Y. 264,106 N. E. 69 (cf. Baillargeon v. Dumoulin, 148 N. Y. S. 443); Di lorio v. Di Brasio, 21 R. I. 208, 42 Atl. 1114; Danheiser v. Germania Sav. Bank, 137 Tenn. 650, 194 S. W. 1094; Fontaine v. Davis (Tex. Civ. App.), 164 S. W. 386 (cf. Roberts v. Anthony (Tex. Civ. App.), 185 S. W. 423); Bellows v. Sowles, 55 Vt. 391, 45 Am. Rep. 621; Citizens' Bank v. Bsbbitt, 71 Vt. 182, 44 Atl. 71; Hewett v. Currier, 63 Wis. 386, 23 N. W. 884.

79Sheppey v. Stevens, 177 Fed. 484, 492; Stewart v. Bradford, 26 Ala. 410; Ware v. Morgan, 67 Ala. 461; Richardson v. Comatock, 21 Ark. 69; Rua-sell v. Daniels, 6 Col. App. 224, 37 Pac. 726; Mulholland v. Bartlett, 74 111. 58; Bates v. Sandy, 27 111. App. 552 (but see later Illinois cases in the previous note); United States Mtge. Co. v. Henderson, 111 Ind. 24, 12 N. E. 88; Sweitser v. Heaaley, 13 Ind. App. 567, 41 N. E. 1064 (cf. Moon v. Martin, 122 Ind. 211, 23 N. E. 668); Tucker v. Bonk, 43 Ia. 80; Potts p. Polk Co., 80 Iowa, 401, 45 N. W. 775; Peterson d, Breitag, 88 Ia. 418, 55 N. W. 86 (see Richardson Co. v. Independent Dist. of Hampton, 70 Ia. 573, 31 N. W. 871); Price v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Kan. 743, 64 Pac. 639; Cline v. Templeton, 78 Ky. 550; Mills v. O'Daniel, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 73, 62 S. W. 1123; Sellars v. Jones, 164 Ky. 458, 175 S. W. 1002 (cf. Waller's Adm'x v. Marks, 100 Ky. 541, 38 S. W. 894; Ripy Bros. Distilling Co. v. Lillard, 149 Ky. 726, 149 8. W. 1009); Schrceder v. Fink, 60 Md. 436; Em-nittsburg v. Donoghue, 67 Md. 383, 10 Atl. 233, 1 Am. Rep. 396; Palfrey v. Portland, etc., R. Co., 4 Allen, 55. (But see later Massachusetts cases, in the previous note.) Taylor v. Weeks, 129 Mich. 233, 88 N. W. 466; Foster v.

Metts, 55 Miss. 77, 30 Am. Rep. 504; Gunning p. Royal, 59 Miss. 45, 42 Am. Rep. 350; Long v. Towl, 42 Mo. 645; Corbyn v. Brokmeyer, 84 Mo. App. 649; Kidder v. Blake, 46 N. H. 530 (cf. Pitkin v. Noyes, 48 N. H. 294, 97 Am. Dec. 615, 2 Am. Rep. 218; Latulippe p. New England Investment Co., 77 N. H. 31, 86 Atl. 361); Oregon & Cal. R. Co. p. Potter, 5 Chug. 228; Fleming v. Ramsey, 46 Pa. 252; Sutton v. Dudley, 193 Pa. 194, 44 Atl. 438. (See also Moore p. Moore, 255 Fed. 497, C. C. A.); Warren v. Williamson, 8 Baxter, 427 (cf. Danheiser v. Germania Sav. Bank, 137 Term. 650, 194 S. W. 1094); McCloy v. Wat-kins, 88 Vt. 457, 92 Atl. 968; Nicholson v. Neary, 77 Wash. 294, 137 Pac. 492; Davisson v, Ford, 23 W. Va. 617. (See Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 S. E. 812.)

80 Montgomery p. Grenier, 117 Minn. 416, 136 N. W. 9; Majors p.. Majors, 92 Neb. 473, 138 N. W. 574; Galitsks v. Fields, 137 N. Y. S. 828.

81Bidwell v. Catton, Hobart, 261 (1618).

82 It was questioned in the case what the result would have been if the defendant had averred that there was no cause of suit.

83 Cook p. Wright, 1 B. & S.559.

84 In the following cases the claim foreborne was against a third person. Riddle v. Hanna, 25 Ala, 484; Marks] v. De Francesco, (Conn. 1919), 105 Atl. 703; Worley p. Sipe, 111 Ind. 238, 12 N. E. 386; Newton p. Canon, 80 Ky. 309; Webster p. LeCompe, 74 Md. 249, 22 Atl. 232; Hieston p. National City Bank, 132 Md. 389,104 Atl. 280; Robinson v. Gould, 11 Cush. 55; Howe v. Taggart, 133 Mass. 284; Calkins v. Chandler, 36 Mich. 320, 24 Am. Rep. 493; Bank of Montreal v. Beeeher, 133 Minn. 81,157 N. W. 1070; Mathews p. Seaver, 34 Neb. 592, 52 N. W. 283; Hockenbury v. Meyers, 34 N. J. L. 346; Traders' Nat. Bank p. Parker, 130 N. Y. 416, 29 N. E. 1094, 42 N. Y. St. 600 (affirming 55 Hun, 608, 8 N. Y. S. 683, 29 N. Y. St. 373); Bank of New Hanover p. Bridge™, 98 N. C. 67, 3 S. E. 826, 2 Am. St. Rep. 317; Giles p. Ackles, 9 Pa. St. 147, 49 Am. Dec. 651; Huns' Executor v. Young, 34 Pa. St. 60; Whitaker p. Greene, (R. I. 1918), 103 Atl 779; Cathcart v. Thomas, 8 Bast. 172.

85Cases of this latter sort are- Sheppey v. Stevens, 185 Fed. 147; Gay p. Sanders, 101 Ga. 601, 28 S. E. 1019; Reichard v. Iaer, 95 Md. 451, 52 Atl. 592; Blount v. Dillaway, 199 Mass. 330, 85 N. E. 477, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1036; Grochowski v. Grochowaki, 77 Neb. 506, 109 N. W. 742, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 484.

86 Wilson p. Wilson, 1 H. L. C. 638; Hart p. Hart, 18 Ch. D. 670, 685; Aldridge p. Aldridge, 13 P. D. 210; Sterling v. Sterling, 12 Ga, 201, 204; Mack p. Mack, 87 Neb. 819,128 N. W. 627, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 441; Barbour p. Barbour, 49 N. J. Eq. 429, 24 Atl. 227; Adams v. Adams, 91 N. Y. 381, 43 Am. Rep. 676. But see Fisher v Koonts, 110 Ia. 498, 80 N. W. 561, 81 N. W. 702; Merrill p. Peaslee, 146 Mass. 460, 16 N. E. 271, 4 Am. St. Rep. 334. Also see infro, Sec.Sec. 1741-1744.

87 There have been several cases in England where a promise in consideration of the forbearance of a winner of a wager to publish as a "welcher" the loser who had failed to pay, has been held sufficient consideration. Bubb v. Yelverton, L. R. 9 Eq. 471; In re Browne, [1904] 2 K. B. 133; Hyams v. Stuart-King, [1908] 2 K. B. 696; Good-son v. Baker, 98 L. T. 415; Goodson foundation, it is clear that the forbearance to prosecute the claim is not valid consideration .88 The same principles seem applicable to forbearance to set up a defence as to forbearance to bring suit.89