Since a debtor incurs no legal detriment by paying part or all of what he owes, and a creditor obtains no legal benefit in receiving it, such a payment if made at the place where the debt is due in the medium of payment which was due, and at or after maturity of the debt, is not valid consideration for any promise. The question most commonly arises when a debtor pays part of a liquidated debt in return for the creditor's agreement that the debt shall be fully satisfied. Such an agreement on the part of the creditor needs for its support other consideration besides the mere part payment.

A chose in action, in the language of the Common Law, lies in grant and not in livery. Only by an agreement under seal, or by a promise for consideration can the whole or part of a debt which is represented by no tangible symbol capable of delivery be discharged.40 Accordingly the agreement of the creditor to discharge the whole debt then and there due in consideration of the payment of part is unsupported by valid consideration.41 Occasional decisions may be found

40 If represented by a note or bond, the intentional cancellation or surrender of that will discharge the debt whether the debtor pays part of the claim or nothing at all. See infra, Sec.Sec. 1876 et seq.

41 Cumber v. Wane, 1 Strange, 426; Foakes v. Beer, 9 A. C. 605; Chicago etc., Ry. Co. v. Clark, 178 U. S. 363, 44 L. Ed. 1099; Hodges v. Tennessee Implement Co., 123 Ala. 572, 26 So. 490; Black v. Slocumb Mule Co., 8 Ala. App. 440, 62 So. 308; Scott v. Rawls, 159 Ala. 399, 48 So. 710; Reynolds p. Reynolds, 55 Ark. 369, 18 S. W. 377 (cf. Dreyfus v. Roberts, 75 Ark. 354, 87 S. W. 641, 112 Am. St. Rep. 67; North State F. I. Co. v. Dillard, 88 Ark.

473,115 S. W. 154); Peacher v. Witter, 131 Cal. 316, 63 Pac. 468; Barnum v. Green, 13 Col. App. 254, 57 Pac. 757; Warren v. Skinner, 20 Conn. 559; Rose v- Hall, 26 Coon. 392, 68 Am. Dec. 402; State ». Northrop (Conn.), 106 Atl. 504; Jordy v. Maxwell, 62 Fla. 236, 56 So, 946; Hayes v. Mass. Mut. L. Ins, Co., 125 111. 626,18 N, E. 322, 1LR. A. 303; Knights Templars' Co. v. Crayton, 209 111. 550, 70 N. E. 1066; Farmers' Ac. Assoc, v. Caine, 224 111. 699,79 N. E. 956; Snow v. Griesheimer, 220 111. 106, 109, 77 N. E. 110; Woodbury v. United States Casualty Co., 284 111. 227,120 N. E. 8; Janci v. Corny, 287 111. 359, 122 N. E. 507; Beaver v. Fulp, 136 Ind. 595, 36 N. E. 418; which are inconsistent with the general rule though that rule is admitted by the courts making the decisions. Thus it has been held in several cases that payment of a reduced rent in accordance with a parol agreement satisfies the tenant's obligation under the lease to pay a larger sum.42 Such a result, however, cannot be made consistent with accepted principles of consideration. A written but unsealed receipt in full signed by the creditor gives no added efficacy to the agreement.43 Nor an indorsement of satisfaction on an execu-

Bender v. Been, 78 Iowa, 283,43 N. W. 216,5 L. R. A, 596; Cartan v. Wm. Tac-kaberry Co., 139 Ia. 586, 117 N. W. 953; St. Louie, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, 35 Kan. 464, 11 Pac. 421; New York L. I Co. v. Van Meter's Adm., 137 Ky. 4,121 S. W. 438, 136 Am. St. Rep. 282; Lee p. Oppenheimer, 32 Me. 253; Emmittsburg R. Co. v. Donoghue, 67 Md. 383, 10 Atl. 233, 1 Am. St. Rep. 306; Commercial Farmers' Bank v. McCormick, 97 Md. 703, 55 Atl. 439; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cottingbam, 103 Md. 319,63 Atl. 359; Tyler v. Odd-Fellows' Mut. Relief Assoc, 145 Mass. 134, 13 N. E. 360; Emerson v. Ger-ber, 178 Mass. 130, 59 N. E. 666; Attorney General v. Supreme Council, 196 Mass. 151, 81 N. E. 966; Upton v. Dennis, 133 Mich. 238, 94 N. W. 728; Demeules v. Jewel Tea Co., 103 Minn. 150, 114 N. W. 733, 123 Am. St. Rep. 315, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 954; Wherley v. Rowe, 106 Minn. 494,119 N. W. 222; Foster County State Bank v. Lammers (Minn.), 134 N. W. 501; Winter p. Kansas City Ry. Co., 160 Mo. 159, 61 S. W. 606; Vinaon v. Lee Jordan Co., 167 Mo. App. 201, 151 S. W. 199; Mcintosh v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 33, 70 N. W. 522; Crawford v. Darrow, 87 Neb. 494, 127 N. W. 891; Line v. Nelson, 38 N. J. L. 358; Day v. Gardner, 42 N. J. Eq. 199, 7 Atl. 365; Murphy v. Kaetner, 50 N. J. Eq. 214, 24 Atl. 564; Eckert v. Wallace, 75 N. J. L. 171, 67 Atl. 76; Decker v. Smith, 88 N. J. L. 630, 96 Atl. 915; Jaffray v. Davis, 124

N. Y. 164, 26 N. E. 351, 35 N. Y. St. 106, 11 L. R. A. 710; Dorman v. Arkin, 120 N. Y. S. 757; Kleinfelter v. Granger, 136 N. Y. S. 485; McKenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C. 534; Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio, * 105; Keen v. Vaughan, 48 Pa. 477; Thomas v. Hill Top Section, 260 Pa. 1, 103 Atl 504; Rose v. Daniels, 8 R. I. 381; Clark v. Summerfield Co., 40 R. 1.254, 100 Atl. 499; Ex parte Zeigler, 83 S. C. 78, 64 S. E. 513; Hagen v. Townsend, 27 S. D. 457, 131 N. W. 512; Miller v. Fox, 111 Tenn. 336, 76 S. W. 893; Simmons Hardware Co. v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.), 147 S. W. 1196; Bergman Produce Co. v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 1102; Goodwin v. Follett, 25 Vt. 386; Smith v. Phillips, 77 Va. 548; Nixon v. Kiddy, 66 W. Va. 355, 69 S. E. 500; Rettinghouse v. Ashland, 106 Wis. 595, 82 N. W. 555; Weidner v. Standard Ins. Co., 120 Wis. 10, 110 N. W. 246.

42 Bowman v. Wright, 65 Neb. 661, 91 N. W. 580; McKenzie v. Harrison, 120 N. Y. 260, 24 N. E. 458, 8 L. R. A. 257, 17 Am. St. Rep. 638; Oasowski v. Wiesner, 101 Wis. 238, 77 N. W. 184. Cf. Doherty v. Doe, 18 Colo. 456, 33 Pac. 165.

43 Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 92 Fed. 968, 35 C. C. A. 120 (rev'd in 178 U. S. 353, 44 L. Ed. 1099, on the ground that the claim in question was unliquidated); Woodbury v. United States Casualty Co., 284 111. 227, 120 N. E. 8; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Davis, tion issued on a judgment for the debt.44 The application of the law of consideration to attempted discharge of liquidated claims has not infrequently been criticised by courts and law writers;45 and in a few jurisdictions the law has been changed by decision,46 or statute.47 But the rule of the common law