113 Minn. 181, 129 N. W. 134; Smith v. Vernon County, 188 Mo. 501, 87 S. W. 949, 70 L. R, A. 59; Gregg v. Pierce, 53 Barb. 387; McCandless v. Allegheny, etc., Co., 152 Pa. 139, 25 Atl. 579; Texas Cotton-Preas, etc., Co. p. Merchants' Fire Co., 54 Tex. 319, 38 Am. Rep. 627; Davis v. Munson, 43 Vt. 676, 5 Am. Rep. 315; Reif v. Paige,

55 Wis. 496,13 N. W. 473,42 Am. Rep. 731; Kinn v. First Nat. Bank, 118 Wis. 537, 95 N. W. 969, 99 Am. St. Rep. 1012. See also Bent v. Wakefield Bank, 4 C. P. D. 1; Long v. Neville, 36 Cal. 455, 95 Am. Dec 199; Marsh v. Gold, 2 Pick. 285; Commonwealth v. Vandyke, 57 Pa. 34. Compare Hatch v. Mann, 15 Wend. 44; Tobine. McComb (Tex. Civ. App.), 166 S. W. 237.

48 Berthiaume v. Doe, 22 Cal. App. 78, 133 Pac. 515.

49Seybolt v. New York, L. E. ft W. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 662, 47 Am. Rep. 75.

50 Shortle v, Terre Haute ft I. R. Co., 131 Ind. 338, 30 N. E. 1084.

51 Kansas City, St. J., etc., Ry. Co. v. Morley, 45 Mo. App. 304.

52 Newton v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co.,

66 Iowa, 422.

53 Illinois Central R. Co. v, Insurance Co., 79 Mm. 114, 30 So. 43; Keller-man v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 136 Mo. in, 34 8. W. 41, 37 S. W. 828; Ward v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 168 Mo. 226, 68 8. W. 28; Wilson v. Mo. Pac Ry. Co., 66 Mo. App. 3S8; Bis-sell v. New York Central R. Co., 26 N. Y. 442, 82 Am. Dec. 369; Nelson v. Hudson River R. Co., 48 N. Y. 498; Gardner p. Southern R. Co., 127 N. C. 293, 37 S. E. 328; Lousiville & N. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 88 Tenn. 430, 12 S. W. 1018, 7 L. R, A. 162; Missouri, etc., Ry. Co. v. Darlington (Tex. Civ. App.), 40.S W. 550; Berry v. West Virginia, etc, R. Co., 44 W. Va. 638,30 S. E. 143, 67 Am. St. Rep. 781; Schaller v. Chicago, etc, Ry. Co., 97 Wis. 31, 71 N. W. 1042.

54Cau v. Texas & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 427, 48 L. Ed. 1053; Charnock v. Tens & P. R. Co., 194 U. S. 432,

48 L. Ed. 1067, and see cases in the preceding note.

55 Willis v. Peckham, 1 Br. & B. 515.

56 Crowburst v. Laverock, 8 Ex. 208; Poetker v. Lowry, 25 Cat. App. 616, 144 Pac. 981; Nine v. Starr, 8 Oreg. 49,

57Wimer v. Worth Township, 104 Pa. 317.

58Keith v. Miles, 39 Miss. 442, 77 Am. Dec. 685.

59Sullivan v. Sullivan, 99 Cal. 187, 33 Pac. 862; Orr v. Sanford, 74 Mo. App. 187.

60 Withers v. Ewing, 40 Ohio St. 400.

61 Chilson v. Bank, 9 No. Dak. 96, 81N. W. 33; Jones c. Risley, 91 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 1027.

62 In Day v. Gardner, 42 N. J. Eq. 199,203,7 Atl. 366,

Sec. 133. Performance or promise of performance of an act which the law holds the promisee bound to do, is no valid consideration though the law provides no means for the enforcement of the legal duty.

There are certain duties for the breach of which the law provides no remedy; but which it, nevertheless, recognizes so far as to invalidate any agreement in contravention of them, and perhaps bo far as to regard the performance of the duty, no legal detriment to one party or benefit to the other. Many agreements are not enforced because opposed to public policy, though contemplating a violation only of a duty to which the law attaches no sanction.65 So the performance of such a duty may be regarded by the law as no sufficient consideration.

Thus the promise of a wife who had left her husband without cause, to return was held insufficient consideration for a counter-promise,66 as was a wife's care, nursing and attendance on her husband while he was sick.67 But since public policy does not require such severe treatment of those who seek to make bargains based on performance of a moral duty as a consideration, as for those who enter into bargains to violate such a duty, courts have not been so strict in denying the validity of consideration where a moral duty was performed, as they have in holding agreements invalid as against public policy where they contemplated a violation of the same duty. Thus an agreement to get drunk would doubtless be against public policy, but an agreement to refrain from doing so would be sufficient consideration for a counter-promise.68 And the same may be said of most other merely moral duties.69

63 Cowper v. Green, 7 M. & W. 633; Manigault v, Ward, 123 Fed. 707; Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 185 Mass. 306, 70 N. E. 202; Conover v. Stillwell, 34 N. J. L 54; Croaby v. Wood, 6 N. Y. 369; Tolhutst v. Powers, 133 N. Y. 460,31N. E. 326; Marcus v. Mayer, 147 N. Y. S. 873; Fink v. Smith, 170 Pa. 124, 32 Atl, 666, 60 Am. St. Rep. 750; Erny v. Sauer, 234 Pa. 330, 83 Atl. 205. Compare Rogers Development Co. v. Southern California Investment Co., 159 Cal. 735, 115 Pac. 934, 36 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 543, where the surrender of real estate in possession of a defaulting buyer was held valid consideration for a promise by the seller, though the seller had the legal right to reclaim possession on account of the default.

64See infra, Sec.135.

65See infra, Sec.Sec. 1628 et seq.

66 Miller v. Miller, 78 Iowa, 177, 35 N. W. 464,16 Am. St. Rep. 431. But if owing to the husband's misconduct the wife was not bound to return, her doing so is sufficient consideration. Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 128 N. W. 527, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 441, 94 Neb. 604, 143 N. W. 464. As to the public policy of such agreements, see infra, Sec. 1744.

67 Foxworthy v. Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 124 S. W. 381, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 308.