Though desire to obtain the consideration for a promise may be and ordinarily is, the motive inducing the promisor to enter into a contract, yet this is not essential nor, on the other hand, can any motive serve in itself as consideration.39 Thus, A may be moved by friendship to agree to sell his horse to B for one hundred dollars. If there is an actual agreement to make the exchange of the horse for money, there will be a contract though A's motive for entering into the transaction was friendship.40 On the other hand, if there be no legal consideration, no motive, such as love and respect, or affection for another 41 or a desire to do justice,42 or fear of trouble,42 or a desire to equalize the shares in an estate,44 or to provide for a child,44a or regret for having advised an unfortunate investment,44b will support a promise. This is a distinction between the consideration of the Common Law and the causa of the Roman Law. Consideration is a present exchange for a promise. Causa is some adequate reason for making a promise, and may be either a present exchange or an existing state of facts.45 As the Civil Law is in force in Louisiana, the requirement of consideration does not there obtain.46
Other illustrations are of promises made by a third party to either the prospective husband or wife of property in consideration of the marriage. Shadwell v. Shadwell, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 159; Skeete v. Silberberg, 11T. L. Rep. 491; Wright v. Wright, 114 Iowa, 748, 87 N. W. 709, 66 L. R. A. 261; Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C. 162; Leib v. Dobriner, 111 N. Y. Supp. 650, 60 N. Y. Misc. 866.
37 See Peachey on Marriage Settlements, 62; Prewit v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22, 26 L. Ed. 360; Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala, 375, 4 So. 699; Cohen v. Knox, 90 Cal. 266, 27 Pac, 215, 13 L. R. A. 711; Tolman v. Ward, 86 Me. 303, 29 Atl. 1081, 41 Am. St. Rep. 556; Smith v.
Allen, 5 Allen, 454, 81 Am. Deo. 758; J. P. Leininger Lumber Co. v. Dewey, 86 Neb. 659, 126 N. W. 87; De Hiera. polia p. Reilly, 168 N. Y. 585, 60 N. E. 1110; Clay v Walter, 79 Va. 92, Cf. Miles v. Monroe, 96 Ark. 531, 132 S. W. 643.
38Re Holland,  2 Ch. 360; Deshon v. Wood, 148 Mass. 132, 19 N. E. 1,1 L. R. A. 518; Borst v. Corey, 15N.Y.505. See also Moore v. Green, 145 Fed. 472,76 C. C. A. 242.
39 "Motive is not the same thing with consideration." Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Q. B. 851. See also Philpot v. Grun-inger, 14 Wall. 570, 20 L. Ed. 743.
40 See Puterbaugh v. Puterbaugh, 131 Ind. 288, 30 N. E. 619,15 L. R. A. 341.