63San Juan v. St. John's Gas Co., 195 U. S. 610, 49 L. Ed. 299, 25 S. Ct. Rep. 108; Leeeon v. Anderson, 99 Mich. 247,58 N. W. 72, 41 Am. St. Rep. 597. Logically perhaps this principle would sustain any promise for which the con-sideration was payment or part pay-meat of a debt; for the debtor is never boned to pay the particular coins or bills with which he in fact makes payment, and in giving those coins or bills rather than others he suffers a legal detriment Unless, however, the creditor requested these coins or bills rather than others, this argument is too finespun for legal use. Indeed in Saunders v. Whitcomb, 177 Mass. 457, 59 N. E. 192, it was held that payment in United States money of a portion of a bill of exchange by its terms payable in pounds sterling would not support a promise to forego the remainder of the holder's claim; since payment was made in United States money as matter of convenience, and was not requested as the real exchange for the agreewas not otherwise entitled, whether the security is the property of a third person,68 or of the debtor himself.69
64 Pinner's Case, 5 Coke, 118; Pearson v. Thomason, 15 Ala. 700, 50 Am. Dec. 159; Cavaness v. Ross, 33 Ark. 572; Sonnenberg v. Riedel, 16 Minn. 83; Jones v. Perkins, 29 Miss. 139, 64 Am. Dec. 136; McKenzie v Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio, 105. It should be observed, however, that after maturity a money claim is transitory, and the debtor is bound to pay at any place where he may be found. Foster County State Bank v. Lammers (Minn.), 134 N. W. 501.
65 Roberts v. Carter, 31 111 App. 142; Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio * 105.
66Kemmerer v. Kokendifer, 65 111. App. 31; Fred v. Fred (N. J. Eq), 50 Atl. 776; Brown v. Kern, 21 Wash. 211, 57 Pac. 798. See also Lincoln Savings Bank v. Allen, 82 Fed. 148, 27 C. C. A. 87; McNealey v. Baldridge, 106 Mo. App. 11, 78 S. W. 1031.
67 Meeker v. Requa, 94 N. Y. App. 300, 87 N. Y. S. 959.
Sec. 122. Mutual promises to extend an interest-bearing debt, are sufficient consideration for each other. When a debtor and creditor agree that an interest-bearing debt shall be extended for a fixed time, the promise of each is of something detrimental, as the creditor promises to forbear the collection of his claim, and the debtor gives up his right to stop the accrual of further interest by the payment of the principal at maturity. Accordingly such agreements are generally upheld.70 If, however, the debtor neither promises to refrain from paying the debt until a fixed day in the future, nor to pay interest until that time whether the debt is paid or not, there is no consideration to support the creditor's promise to extend the time of payment.71
68 Post v. Springfield Bank, 138 111. 668, 28 N. E. 078; Schmidt v. Ludwig, 20 Minn. 85, 1 N. W. 803. See also cases collected infra, Sec. 124, where the personal security of a third person is given by the making or indorsing of negotiable paper.
69 Pallium v. Taylor, 50 Miss. 251; Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351, 11 L. R. A. 710. It is indeed said in Keeler v. Salisbury, 33 N. Y. 648, and Walsh v. Curtis, 73 Minn. 254, 76 N. W. 52, that giving security of the debtor's non-exempt property is not valid consideration for an agreement by the creditor to abate a portion of his claim. This is clearly wrong, however, since the debtor is doing something which he was not bound to do, and the creditor is receiving a benefit to which he was not previously entitled. The possibility which the creditor previously had of seizing on execution his debtor's non-exempt property is a different thing from the hold given by a mortgage or pledge.
70Rees v. Berrington, 2 Ves. 540; Stallings v. Johnson, 27 Ga. 564; Reynolds v. Barnard, 36 111. App. 218; Croasman v. Wohileben, 90 111. 537; Royal v. Lindsay, 15 Kans. 591; Lorrimer v. Fairchild, 68 Kans. 328, 75 Pac. 124; Shepherd v. Thompson, 2 Bush, 176; Robinson v. Miller, 2 Bush, 179; Alley v. Hopkins, 98 Ky. 668, 34 S. W. 13, 56 Am. St. Rep. 382; Chute v. Pattee, 37 Me. 102; Simpson v. Evans, 44 Minn. 419, 40 N. W. 008; Moore v. Redding, 69 Miss. 841, 13 So. 840; Davis v. Lane, 10 N. H. 156; Fowler v. Brooks, 13 N. H. 240; Ms-Comb v. Kittridge, 14 Ohio * 348; Wood v. Newkirk, 15 Oh. St. 295; Fawcett v. Freshwater, 31 Ohio St 637; Bickel v. Wessinger, 58 Ore. 98, 113 Pac. 34; Benson v. Phipps, 87 Tex. 578, 29 S. W. 1081, 47 Am. St. Rep. 128. The contrary decisions cannot be supported. Abel v. Alexander, 45 Ind. 623, 15 Am. Rep. 270; Hume v. Mase-lin, 84 Ind. 574; Holmes v. Boyd, 90 Ind. 332; Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 25 N. E. 862, 22 Am. St. Rep. 565; Wilson v. Powers, 130 Mass. 127; Hale v. Forbes, 3 Mont. 395; Grover v. Hoppock, 2 Dutch. 191; Kellogg v. Olmsted, 26 N. Y. 189; Parmelee v. Thompson, 45 N. Y. 68, 6 Am. Rep. 33; Olmsted v. Latimer, 168 N. Y. 313, 53 N. E. 5, 43 L. R. A. 685; Stickler v. Giles, 9 Wash. 147, 37 Pac. 293. See also Toplits v. Bauer, 161 N. Y. 326, 55 N. E. 1059.