In many States the distinction between sealed and unsealed written contracts is in terms abolished. This is true in Alaska,78 Arizona,79 Arkansas,80 California,81 Idaho,82 Indiana,83 Iowa,84 Kansas,85 Kentucky,86 Minnesota,87 Mississippi,88 Missouri,89 Montana,90 Nebraska,91 Nevada,92 North Dakota,93 Ohio,94 Oklahoma,95 South Dakota,96 Tennessee,97 Texas,98 Washing-ton.99

In moat of these States it is also enacted that any written contract shall be presumed to have been made for sufficient consideration. Whether if lack of consideration is affirmatively proved the agreement is invalid is often left subject to doubt.

78 Code Civ. Proo., Sec. 1041. But if a seal is used it still has its common-law effect.

79 Civ. Code (1913), Sec. 6664.

80Const, of 1868, Kirby & Castle's Dig. (1916), p. 180.

81 Code Civ. Proc., Sec.1932.

82 Rev. Code (1908), Sec. 3319.

83 Bums' Ann. St. (1914), Sec. 466.

84 Supp. Code (1913-1915), Sec. 3068.

85 Gen, Stat. (1915), Sec. 2039.

86 Carroll's Stat. (1915), Sec. 471.

87Gen. Stat. (1913), Sec. 6704.

88 Code (1917), Sec. 7419.

89 Rev. Stat. (1909), Sec. 2773.

90Rev. Code (1907), Sec. 6022.

91 Rev. Stat. (1913), Sec. 6261.

92 Rev. Laws (1912), Sec. 1095.

93 Comp. Laws (1913), Sec. 5894.

94Annot. Gen. Code (1912), Sec. 32.

95 Rev. Laws (1910), Sec. 944.

96Comp. Laws (1913), Civ. Code, Sec. 1243.

97Shannon's Code (1917), Sec. 3212.

98McEachin's Civ. Stat. (1913), Art. 7092,

99 Remington's Code (1915), { 8751. Though the statute provides that the addition of a private seal to a contract "shall not affect its validity or legality in any respect," the Supreme Court, without citing the statute, says that a seal prima facie imports consideration. Considine v. Gallagher, 31 Wash. 669, 72 Pac. 469; Gates v. Herr, 102 Wash. 131,172 Pac 912.

Arizona,1 California,2 Idaho,3 Iowa,4 Kentucky,5 Mississippi,6 Missouri,7 Montana,8 North Dakota,9 South Dakota,10 Tennessee,11 Texas 12 have such provisions.

In other States it is enacted only that sealed contracts shall be presumed in the absence of contrary evidence to have been made for sufficient consideration, and in such States sealed contracts differ from ordinary written contracts to this extent. This is the law in Alabama,13 Michigan,14 New Jersey,15 New York,16 Oregon,17 Wisconsin.18 In Illinois under a statute of different form a similar result has been reached.19

Some differences of construction of these Statutes may be noted. In New Jersey it has been held that a covenant which was and was intended to be voluntary is binding, the word "presumed" in the Statute being construed as meaning conclusively presumed.20 But it may be doubted if this construction would generally be followed. It is rather to be supposed that where a Statute states that a sealed instrument is presumed to have sufficient consideration, the presumption intended to be created is disputable.21 The New

1 Civ. Code (1913), Sec. 6564.

2 Civ. Code, Sec.1963 (39); Vickrey v. Maier, 164 Cal. 384,774,129 Pac. 273, 276; In re Thomson's Estate, 165 Cat. 290, 131 Pac. 1045; Anderson v. Wickliffe, (Cal. 1918), 172 Pac. 381; Patterson v. Chapman, (Cal. 1918), 176 Pac. 37, 2 A. L. R. 1467.

3 Rev. Stat. (1908), Sec. 3314. 4Code (1897), Sec.3089; Gould v.

Gum, 161 Ia. 166, 140 N. W. 380; Mahaska County State Bank v. Brown, 169 Ia. 677,141 N. W. 469.

5Ky. Stat. (1916), Sec.471.

6Code(1917), 55 7419-7421.

7Rev. Stat. (1909), 52774 (only promises to pay money).

8 Rev. Code (1607), Sec. 5023.

9Comp. Laws (1913), Sec. 5881.

10Comp. Laws (1913), Civ. Code, Sec.1232 (2).

11 Shannon's Code (1917), 5 3214.

12McEachin's Civ. Stat. (1913),

Art. 7093; Panhandle etc. Ry. v. Fitts (Tex. Civ. App.), 188 S. W. 528.

13 Code (1907), Sec. 5324.

14Comp. Laws (1916), { 12534.

15Comp. Stat. (1911), p. 2240, 566.

16Code of Civ. Proc. 840.

17 Lord's Oreg. Laws (1910), Sec. 513.

18Stat. (1916), 54195.

19Builen v. Morrison, 98 111. App. 669; Bartholomte Brewing Co. v. Motycka, 163 111. App. 238; Pabst Brewing Co. v. LePage, 186 111. App. 468. See also Cortelyou v. Barnsdall, 236 111. 138, 86 N. E. 200; cf. Chicago etc. Mfg. Co. v. Haven, 196 111. 474, 63 N. E. 168.

20 Aller v. Aller, 40 N. J. L. 446; Braden v. Ward, 42 N. J. L. 518; Waln v. Waln, 58 N. J. L. 640, 34 Atl. 1068.

21 Gardner v. Watson, 170 Cal. 570, 150 Pac. 994; Danby v. Beebe, 147 Mich. 312,110 N. W. 1066; Axe v. Tol-

York Statute applies to executory contracts only; therefore a voluntary release,22 or assignment of a chose in action,23 under seal is valid. In Idaho,24 New Mexico,25 and Wyoming,26 while seals are abolished, unsealed written contracts are clearly given the effect which sealed contracts had at common law, so far as concerns their validity without consideration.