6 Brown v. Jennett, 130 la. 311, 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 725, 106 N. W. 747. (B's release of A may also be regarded here as the consideration.)

7 Schumacher v. Dolan, 154 la. 207, 134 N. W. 624.

8 Stearns v. Foote, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 432; Trask v. Vinson, 37 Mass. (20 Pick.) 105.

9 Vincent v. Watson, 18 Pa. St. (6 Harris) 96.

10Bing v. Bank, 5 Ga. App. 578, 63 S. E. 652.

11 Reynolds v. Reynolds, 92 Ky. 556, 18 S. W. 517.

12 Iowa. Marshall v. Bullard, 114 la. 462, 54 L. R. A. 862, 87 N. W. 427.

Kansas. Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524, L. R. A. 1917A, 725, 158 Pac. 864.

Michigan. Cunningham v. Irwin, 182 Mich. 629, 148 N. W. 786.

New Jersey. Jackson v. Pennsyl-vania R. R., 66 N. J. L. 319, 55 L. R. A. 87, 49 Atl. 730.

Ohio. Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 O. S. 71.

Pennsylvania. Melroy v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. St. 381, 120 Am. St. Rep. 888, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1018, 67 Atl. 699.

South Carolina. Ex parte Zeigler, 83 S. Car. 78, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 64 S. E. 513, 916.

13 Alabama. Bank v. Ohio Buggy Co., 100 Ala. 626, 13 So. 621.

California. Schroeder v. Pissis, 128 Cal. 209, 60 Pac. 758.

Georgia. Stewart v. Langston, 103 Ga. 290, 30 S. E. 35.

Iowa. Williams Shoe Co. v. Gotzian, 130 la. 710, 107 N. W. 807.

Kentucky. Ricketts v. Hall, 65 Ky. (2 Bush.) 249.

Maryland. Pistel v. Ins. Co., 88 Md. 552, 43 L. R. A. 219, 42 Atl. 210.

Massachusetts. Perkins v. Lockwood, 100 Mass. 249, 1 Am. Rep. 103.

Minnesota. Newell v. Higgins, 55 Minn. 82, 56 N. W. 577.

If C has brought an action against A for alienating the affections of C's wife, B, a contract between A and B, by which A agrees to pay a certain sum of money to B if such action for the alienation of B's affections is dismissed, is supported by a sufficient consideration.17

A note by A to B may be supported by a consideration furnished to A by X.18 If consideration moves from X, the drawer of a bill of exchange or an order to A, the drawee, such consideration

New Hampshire. Gage v. De Cour-cey, 68 N. H. 579, 41 Atl. 183.

New Jersey. Daniels v. Hatch, 21 N. J. L. 391, 47 Am. Dec. 169.

New York. White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518, 1 Am. St. Rep. 886, 14 N. E. 423.

Ohio. Way v. Langley, 15 O. S. 392.

Pennsylvania. Laird v. Campbell, 92 Pa. St. 470.

Wisconsin. Continental National Bank v. McGeoch, 92 Wis. 286, 66 N. W. 606.

14 Henry v. Patterson, 57 Pa. St. 346.

15 Henry v. Patterson, 57 Pa. St. 346.

16 Pitts Sons' Mfg. Co. v. Commercial

National Bank, 121 111. 582, 13 N. E. 156.

17Huber v. Culp, 46 Okla. 570, 149 Pac. 216.

18 Alabama. Hughes v. Young, 25 • Ala. 483; Carter v. Long, 125 Ala. 280, 28 So. 74.

Georgia. Bing v. Bank, 5 Ga. App. 578, 63 S. E. 652.

Illinois. Cobb v. Heron, 180 111. 49, 54 N. E. 189.

Indiana. Moore v. Hubbard, 15 Ind. App. 84, 42 N. E. 962.

Kentucky. Farrow v. Turner, 9 Ky. (2 A. K. Marsh) 495; Clay v. Johnson, 15 Ky. (5 Litt.) 176; Reynolds v. Keyis sufficient to support a promise by A to B, the payee of such bill.19 Payment by the payee of a bill of exchange to the drawer will support a subsequent promise by the acceptor to the payee.20 Permission to a national bank by the comptroller to resume business and a restoration of the directors of the bank to their lawful relations with it, is consideration for a contract by which a third person furnished collateral to secure excessive loans theretofore made by a bank to a director, and such bank can enforce such promise and foreclose its lien upon such collateral. Whatever consideration there was in this case moved from the United States in allowing the bank to resume business, or from those dealing with the bank thereafter, but not from the bank itself.21 It might be explained on the ground that a pledge for a pre-existing debt needs no consideration. The same result has been reached where a note was given to enable the bank to pass examination by the state bank examiner.22 The withdrawal by the mother of her demand upon the poormaster for the support of a bastard child, resulting in the poormaster's dismissing his action against the father, is consideration for a promise to her to furnish such support.23 A promise by an officer of a corporation to accept a reduction in salary in consideration of the acceptance of a like reduction by other officers, is supported by sufficient consideration.24 nolds, 92 Ky. 556, 18 S. W. 517; Hale v. Harris (Ky.), 5 L. R. A. (N.S.) 295, 91 S. W. 660, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 1172.

Michigan. Palmer v. Bray, 136 Mich. 85, 98 N. W. 849.

Missouri. Russell v. Barcroft, 1 Mo. 514.

Nebraska. Tecumseh National Bank v. Chamberlain Banking House, 63 Neb. 163, 57 L. R. A. 811, 88 N. W. 186.

New Hampshire. Bank v. Rand, 38 N. H. 166; Peterborough & Shirley Ry. v. Chamberlain, 44 N. H. 494.

Oklahoma. Doxy v. Perry Exchange Bank, 19 Okla. 183, 92 Pac. 150.

Texas. Dolson v. De Ganahl, 70 Tex. 620, 8 S. W. 321.

Utah. Utah National Bank v. Nelson, 38 Utah 169, 111 Pac. 907.

Washington. Skagit State Bank v. Moody, 86 Wash. 286, L. R. A. 1916A, 1215, 150 Pac. 425.

19 Alabama. Hunt v. Johnson, 96 Ala. 130, 11 So. 387.

Indiana. Olds Wagon Works v. Coombs, 124 Ind. 62, 24 N. . 569.

Iowa. First National Bank v. Snell, 32 la. 167.

New York. Briggs v. Sizer, 30 N. Y. 647.

North Carolina. Mason v. Wilson, 84 N. Car. 51, 37 Am. Rep. 612; Craig v. Stewart, 163 N. Car. 531, 79 S. E. 1100.

20Arpin v. Owens, 140 Mass. 144, 3 N. E. 25.

21 Teeumseh National Bank v. Cham-merlain, 63 Neb. 163, 57 L. R. A. 811, 88 N. W. 186.

22 Skagit State Bank v. Moody, 86 Wash. 286, L. R. A. 1916A, 1215, 150 Pac. 425.

23 Beach v. Voegtlen, 68 N. J. L. 472, 53 Atl. 695.

24 Puller v. Royal Casualty Co., 271 Mo. 369, 196 S. W. 755.

Subscription contracts in which the mutual promises of the subscribers are treated as considerations, are discussed later.25