Maryland. Ziehm v. Frank Steil Brewing Co., 131 Md. 582, 102 Atl. 1005.

Massachusetts. Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60, 3 Am. Dec. 435.

Michigan. Davis v. Phillips, 85 Mich. 198, 48 N. W. 513; Valley City Milling Co. v. Prange, 123 Mich. 211, 81 N. W. 1074.

Minnesota. Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N. W. 963; Carlson v. Elwell, 128 Minn. 440, 151 N. W. 188.

Missouri. Lindsay v. Sonora Cold Mining & Milling Co., - Mo. - , 196 S. W. 764; C. H. Brown Banking Co. v. Fink, 95 Mo. App. 257, 68 S. W.

586.

New Jersey. Worcester Loom Co. v. Heald, 78 N. J. L. 172, 72 Atl. 421.

New York. Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1, 7 Am. Dec. 513; Earl v. Peck, 64 N. Y. 596.

Ohio. Judy v. Louderman, 48 O. S. 562, 29 N. E. 181.

Oklahoma. Meadows v. Neal, - Okla. - , 174 Pac. 753.

Pennsylvania. Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts (Pa.) 104, 26 Am. Dec. 107; Davidson v. Little, 22 Pa. St. 245, 60 Am. Dec. 81.

South Carolina. Whitefield v. Mc-Leod, 2 Bay (S. Car.) 380, 1 Am. Dec. 650.

Tennessee. Woodfolk v. Blount, 6 Tenn. (3 Hayw.) 147, 9 Am. Dec. 736; Randall v. Harris, 12 Tenn, (6 Yerg.) 508; Danheiser v. Germania Savings Bank & Trust Co., 137 Tenn. 650, 194 S. W. 1094; Townsend v. Neuhardt, 139 Tenn, 695, 203 S. W. 255.

Virginia. Jones v. Degge, 84 Va. 685, 5 S. E. 799.

West Virginia. Whittaker v. Improvement Co., 34 W. Va. 217, 12 S. E. 507.

Wisconsin. Jacobs v. Wisconsin Nat. Life Ins. Co., 162 Wis. 318, 156 N. W. 159; Trumpf v. Shoudy, 166 Wis. 353, 164 N. W. 454.

2 Ohio. Judy v. Louderman, 48 O. S. 562, 29 N. E. 181.

Contra:

Georgia. McElven v. Sloan, 56 Ga, 208.

Indiana. Sponhaur v. Malloy, 21 Ind. App. 267, 52 N. E. 245.

Maryland. Schroeder v. Fink, 60 Md. 436.

Minnesota. Anderson v. Nystrom, 103 Minn. 168, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1141, 114 N. W. 742.

South Carolina. Ferrell v. Scott, 2 Spears (S. Car.) 344, 42 Am. Dec. 371.

A promise by the administrator of an insolvent estate to pay a debt of decedent's personally has no consideration if such debt is not released. Vo-gel v. O'Toole, 2 Ind. App. 196, 28 N. E. 209.

By statute in some jurisdictions a release for personal injuries, given by an employe to an employer, is invalid if upon a manifestly inadequate consideration.7 A transfer of an interest in a partnership, even though unprofitable;8 a transfer of mortgaged personalty;9 the conveyance of a contingent interest which ultimately fails;10 a transfer of personal property in consideration of transferee's agreeing to pay transferer's debts in excess of the value of such property;11 a transfer of a valid though unprofitable patent right;12 payment in current money which afterwards became worthless;13 a transfer of stock in a corporation whose property is worth little,14 or nothing,15 or which, though valuable when the contract was made, subsequently becomes worthless;16 a quitclaim of land releasing the interest of one who has in fact no interest therein;17 the execution of a release by one who has nothing to release;18 the execution of an indenture of apprenticeship, even though void as not stating the full consideration;19 the surrender of a guaranty which is unenforceable, since the consideration is not expressed in writing;20 a sale of whatever gravel there is on certain realty, even if insufficient for the purposes of the vendee,21 or a sale of a mining lease, though soon forfeited because the claim was not worked.22

3 Wilton v. Eaton, 127 Mass. 174.

A promise not to present against the estate of a decedent, a note which at the time of such promise was barred by the statute of limitations, is not a consideration. Taylor v. Weeks, 129 Mich. 233, 88 N. W. 466.

4 Meredith v. Short, Holt (E. B.) 34.

5 Churchill v. Bradley, 58 Vt. 403, 56 Am. Rep. 563, 5 Atl. 189.

6Bloodworth v. Booser, 99 Ark. 238, 138 S. W. 457.

7 Cobb v. Heron, 180 111. 49, 54 N. E. 189 [affirming, 78 111. App. 654]; Law-son v. Halifax-Tonopah Mining Co., 36 Nev. 591, 135 Pac. 611, 138 Pac. 261 [decided under Revised Laws (1912), Sec. 5652].

8Mulhall v. Mulhall, 3 Okla. 304, 41 Pac. 109.

9 Keyes v. Allen, 65 Vt. 667, 27 Atl. 319.

10 Weatherford v. Boulware, 102 Ky. 416, 43 S. W. 729.

11Tibbett v. Zurbuch, 22 Ind. App. 354, 52 N. E. 815.

12 Davis v. Phillips, 85 Mich. 198, 48 N. W. 513; Van Norman v. Barbeau, 54 Minn. 388, 55 N. W. 1112.

13Dohoney v. Womack, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 354, 19 S. W. 883, 20 S. W. 950 (confederate currency).

14 Coles v. Kennedy, 81 la. 360, 25 Am. St. Rep. 503, 46 N. W. 1088 (a mine which has not yet begun to pay expenses).

15 State Bank v. Gates, 114 la. 323, 86 N. W. 311; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N. W. 963; Van Ars-dale v. Brown, 18 Ohio C. C. 52, 9 Ohio C. D. 488.

A sale of land for two-thirds of its actual value,23 or for almost ten times its value,24 or a sale of a legacy for about one-fifth of its actual value,25 are not rendered invalid by reason of the inadequacy of the consideration. The law will not inquire into adequacy of consideration of a contract not to compete.26

The courts are especially unwilling to declare a contract invalid because of inadequate consideration if one or both parties to the contract are taking chances deliberately upon the outcome of the transaction. In such cases, the fact that the transaction may prove to be very profitable to one party and correspondingly unprofitable to the other party, does not render such contract invalid in the absence of fraud, mistake, and the like.27 A contract of compromise where both parties intend to take chances upon the outcome of the transaction;28 a contract of a speculative character which provides for sharing future profits which may never be earned;29 a contract for the support of a party in which the actual value of the consideration furnished depends upon the duration of the life of the party to be supported;30 or a contract to make certain payments as long as a designated party shall live,31 have all of them been held to be valid, although the consideration may in fact prove to be inadequate in some cases or excessive in others.

16 Pittsburg, etc., Co. v. Stove Co., 208 Pa. St. 37, 57 Atl. 77.

17McNeal v. Calkins, 50 111. App. 17 (consideration for a note from grantee); Mullen v. Hawkins, 141 Ind. 363, 40 N. E. 797 (consideration for a promise by a third person); Rowe v. Barnes, 101 la. 302, 70 N. W. 197; Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 56 Minn. 250, 57 N. W. 658 (consideration for a promise by grantee to pay mortgages on such realty). These cases can be explained by the doctrine of compromise of doubtful claims. See Sec. 612 et seq. Compare with sales of public land made by an individual. See Sec. 564.

18Sykes v. Chadwick, 85 U. S. (18 Wall'.) 141, 21 L. ed. 824.

19 Westlake v. Adams, 5 C. B. (N.S.) 248.

20Haigh v. Brooks, 10 Ad. & E1. 309.

21 Valley City Milling Co. v. Prange, 123 Mich. 211, 81 N. W. 1074.

22C. H. Brown Banking Co. v. Fink, 95 Mo. App. 257, 68 S. W. 586.

23 Brooks v. Broussard, 136 La. 380, 67 So. 65.

24Trumpf v. Shoudy, 166 Wis. 353, 104 N. W. 454.

25 Good's Estate, 227 Pa. St. 389, 76 Atl. 98.

26 PiIkington v. Scott, 15 M. & W. 657; Hitchcock v. Coker, 6 Ad. & El. 438.

27 Connecticut. Church v. Spicer, 85 Conn. 579, 83 Atl. 1115.

Iowa. Diehl v. McKinnon, 173 la. 32, L. R. A. 1916C, 384, 155 N. W. 259.

Minnesota. Carlson v. Elwell, 128 Minn. 440, 151 N. W. 188.

New York. Ga Nun v. Palmer, 216 N. Y. 603, 111 N. E. 223.

Wisconsin. Jacobs v. Wisconsin Nat. Life Insurance Co., 162 Wis. 318, 156 N. W. 159.