5 Bald Eagle, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 171 Pa. St. 284, 50 Am. St. Rep. S07, 29 L. R. A. 423, 33 Atl. 239.

6 Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Electric Co., 76 Fed. 422, 22 C. C. A. 258; McGaughey v. Richardson, 148 Mass. 608, 20 N. E. 202.

7 United States. Fleischnvan v. Rahmstorf, 226 Fed. 443, 141 C. C. A. 273.

Alabama. McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451, 54 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 So. 806; Harris v. Theus, 149 Ala. 133, 123 Am. St. Rep. 17, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 204, 43 So. 131.

Michigan. Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296, 68 Am. St Rep. 480, 72 N. W. 157; Weickgenant v. Eccles, 173 Mich. 695, 140 N. W. 513; Weiss v. Stein, 187 Mich. 369, 153 N. W. 810.

New Mexico. Locke v. Murdoch, 20 N. M. 522, 151 Pac. 298.

Wisconsin. My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 597, 109 N. W. 540; Kradwell v. Thiesen, 131 Wis. 97, 111 N. W. 233. (The purchase by A of property from B is a consideration for C's promise not to compete with A.) Ryan v. Hamilton, 205 111. 191, 68 N. E. 781 [reversing Hamilton v. Ryan, 103 111. App. 212].

The sale of a business is consideration for a promise by the buyer to load wheat for the seller, on request, at a certain specified price. Carlisle v. Farmers' Elevator & Business Association, . - Kan. - , 180 Pac. 280.

8 Wilkes v. Stacy, 113 Ark. 556, 169 S. W. 796.

9 Hills v. Hopp, - 111. - , 122 N. E. 510; Merchant v. O'Rourke, 111 la. 351, 82 N. W. 759; First Nat. Bank v. Corporation Securities Co., 128 Minn. 341, 150 N. W. 1084; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Stahlman, 132 Tenn. 367, L. R. A. 1916-A, 568, 178 S. W. 942; Peterson v. Chase, 115 Wis. 239, 91 N. W. 687.

10Cothran v. Witiham, 123 Ga. 190, 51 S. E. 285.

11 Rohling v. Thole, 256 111. 425, 100 N. E. 138.

12Smitherman Cotton Mills v. Mfg. Co., 125 N. Car. 329, 34 S. E. 446.

13 Myers v. Metzger, 61 N. J. Eq. 522, 48 Atl. 1113.

14 Wallace v. Leber, 66 N. J. L. 195, 47 Atl. 430.

15 Bourne v. Sherrill, 143 N. Car. 381, 55 S. E. 799.

16 Patrick v. Barker, 78 Neb. 823, 112 N. W. 358.

A guaranty which is made as a part of the original transaction needs no separate consideration, but is supported by the consideration which supports such original transaction.24 If the original transaction was entered into in reliance upon the promise of the debtor to furnish security, the consideration for such original transaction will support a subsequent guaranty.25 A purchase of a wife's realty is a consideration for a contemporaneous promise by the husband.26 If A, who holds a mortgage upon B's realty, promises B that in consideration of B's selling a part of such realty to X for certain shares of stock, A would accept payment of his mortgage debt in such shares of stock, B's sale of such realty to X is an acceptance of A's promise, and it is sufficient consideration therefor.27

17 Harris v. Theus, 149 Ala. 133, 123 Am. St. Rep. 17, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 204, 43 So. 131.

18Herkenrath v. Ragley, 59 Wash. 52, 109 Pac. 279.

19Tuttle Bros. v. Cedar Rapids, 176 Fed. 86, 99 C. C. A. 606.

20 Boonton v. United Water Supply Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 536, 91 .Atl. 814 [affirmed, Boonton v. United Water Supply Co., 84 N. J. Eq. 197, 93 Atl. 1086].

21 Jordan v. Indianapolis Water Co., 159 Ind. 337, 64 N. E. 680.

22Marr v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 121 Ia. 117, 96 N. W. 716.

23Steltzer v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 156 la. 1, 134 N. W. 573.

A loan is consideration for a mortgage given to secure it and for a contract entered into at the same time and as part of the same transaction;28 or for a promise by the debtor to assume a debt due to the creditor from a third person.29 In a contract whereby A agrees to sell goods for B to customers living in a county outside a city, and B agrees to pay A commissions on all sales to persons living in the city, whether A has helped make such sales or not, and on all sales in the county outside the city, made by A, B's promises are both supported by consideration.30 A transfer of the good will of a business and a promise not to compete therein and to send to the vendee all communications concerning the business constitute a consideration for a promise to pay a certain sum for the business and a certain further sum monthly thereafter.31 Rendition of services is a consideration for a covenanat to pay both for such services and for services already rendered for which the promisor was not legally liable.32 If A makes a promise to B to the effect that if B ships certain goods over A's line, and pays the regular freight charges therefor, A will furnish free storage for such goods, B's shipment of such goods and payment of freight is a sufticient consideration to support A's promise to furnish free storage charges; and if B has been obliged to pay storage charges to obtain possession of such goods, B may recover such payment from A.33 If the consideration which is furnished by A is a money consideration, or one which is fixed by law in money, and one of B's covenants is to repay such amount of money or to perform some act, the value of which is fixed by law in money and which is of the same value as the consideration furnished by A, a question arises, as to whether the rule that the consideration must be adequate where the duty on each side is to pay money or to perform something, the value of which is fixed by law in money,34 permits the consideration furnished by A to support the remaining covenants on the part of B. If A is indebted to B, and A subsequently borrows an additional amount and gives his note for the amount thus borrowed, it is said that B's promise, entered into as a part of such transaction not to enforce such prior obligation is without consideration.31 On the other hand, A's act in transferring his account to a bank, B, is consideration for B's promise to lend a certain specified sum of money if A should wish to borrow it in addition to B's liability to repay the amount of such deposit.36 If A lends money to B, which is secured by a mortgage on realty which is possibly insufficient as security for the debt, such loan is consideration for B's covenants to pay such debt and to sell A's beer exclusively for a certain period of time.37 A further qualification of this doctrine must be noted in cases where A does some act whereon B becomes bound in law to do certain things, but as consideration for agreeing to do what he is thus bound in law to do, he exacts a further promise from A. In such cases B's promise is no consideration for A's further promise. An illustration of this principle is found where B, a common carrier, requires A, a shipper, to assent to a limitation of B's common-law liability before he agrees to transport B's goods at regular rates. In such cases B's agreement to relieve A from his common-law liability is held in many states to be without consideration.38 If, however, B makes a reduction in the regular rates in consideration of two or more covenants limiting his liability, such reduction, if authorized by law, is consideration for all of such covenants, and it is not necessary that there should be a separate consideration for each separate covenant.39