Oregon. Dodson v. Dodson, 26 Or. 349, 37 Pac. 542. Pennsylvania. Crawford's Appeal, 61

Pa. St. 52, 100 Am. Dec. 609; Martin's Estate, 131 Pa. St. 638, 18 Atl. 987; Cleaver v. Lenhart, 182 Pa. St. 285, 37 Atl. 811; Lennig's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 485, 61 Am. St. Rep. 725, 38 L. R. A. 378, 38 Atl. 466.

South Carolina. Gourdin v. Tren-holm, 25 S. Car. 362.

Tennessee. Bradford v. Foster, 87 Tenn. 4, 9 S. W. 195.

Utah. Walker v. Bamberger, 17 Utah 239, 54 Pac. 108; Price v. Lloyd, 31 Utah 86, 86 Pac. 767.

Washington. Washington Mill Co. v. Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 165, 52 Pac. 1067.

West Virginia. Weaver v. Burr, 31 W. Va. 736, 3 L. R. A. 94, 8 S. E. 743; Thomas v. Mott, 74 W. Va. 493, 82 S. E. 325.

Wisconsin. Templeton v. Butler, 117 Wis. 455, 94 N. W. 306. "Price is as essential as any other of the terms of a contract and without this agreed upon no contract exists." State v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 81 Am. St. Rep. 368, 51 L. R. A. 151, 60 S. W. 91. See on this question, Gratuitous Undertakings, by Joseph H. Beale, 5 Harvard Law Review, 222; The Doctrine of Consideration, by Clarence D. Ashley, 26 Harvard Law Review, 429.

2See, The Want of Consideration as a Defense to Negotiable Paper, by Francis M. Burdick, 37 American Law Register (N.S.) 337. See ch. LXXII.

3 See Sec. 731 et seq.

4 South Park Commissioners v. Chicago City Ry. Co., 286 111. 504, 122 N. E. 89; Gross v. Bibo, 19 N. M. 495, 145 Pac. 480.

5 See Sec. 564 et seq.

6 California. Peachy v. Witter, 131 Cal. 316, 63 Pac. 468.

Georgia. Tatum v. Morgan, 108 Ga. 336, 33 S. E. 940.

Kansas. Ott v. Anderson, 9 Kan. App. 320, 61 Pac. 330; Conklin v. Lori-mer, 10 Kan. App. 550, 63 Pac. 23.

Michigan. Bartlett v. Smith, 146 Mich. 188, 109 N. W. 260.

Montana. Burton v. Kipp, 30 Mont. 275, 76 Pac. 563.

New Mexico. Southard v. Latham, 18 N. M. 503, 138 Pac. 205.

Thus a promise for an extension of time, "subject to the same terms and conditions, including tax insurance and interest clauses as at present," is void. Olmstead v. Latimer, 158 N. Y. 313, 43 L. R. A. 685, 53 N. E. 5. Compare Angel v. Miller, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 679; 39 S. W. 1092; Buffington v. Bronson, 61 O. S. 231, 56 N. E. 762.

7Alabama Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co., 190 Ala. 397, 67 So. 318.

8 Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 6 Am. St. Rep. 417, 11 Atl. 284.

9Mobile, etc., Co. v. Owen, 121 Ala. 505, 25 So. 612.

10 Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Mudge, 68 N. H. 462, 44 Atl. 600.

11 Caylor v. Caylor, 22 Ind. App. 666, 72 Am. St. Rep. 331, 52 N. E. 465; Drake v. Lanning, 49 N. J. Eq. 452, 24 Atl. 378.

12Dodson v. Dodson, 26 Or. 349, 37 Pac. 542.

13 0u11aban v. Baldwin, 100 Cal. 648, 35 Pac. 310; Templeton v. Butler, 117 Wis. 455, 94 N. W. 306.

14Bays v. Johnson, 80 W. Va. 559, 92 S. E. 792.

15Gutheil v. Schmidt, 8 Colo. App. 71, 44 Pac. 853; Rice v. Rice, 46 La. Ann. 711, 15 So. 538.

16Grunwald v. Freese (Cal.), 34 Pac. 73.

17Burton v. Kipp, 30 Mont. 275, 76 Pac. 563.

18Isham v. Therasson, 53 N. J. Eq. 10, 30 Atl. 969. (Where no promise to pay therefor has been made.)

19Sugg v. Farrar, 107 N. Car. 123, 12 S. E. 236.

miums on a life insurance policy payable to another;20 a promise to deal with a certain firm exclusively;21 a promise to pay an annuity;22 a promise to pay commissions without service in return;23 a promise to give to another a share of profits in an enterprise to which such other contributes nothing;24 a promise by the prospective purchaser of land at a sheriff's sale to divide it with the original owner;25 a promise by A to buy certain land with his own money, sell it to X and pay one-half of the profits of such transaction to B, who was X's agent;26 a promise to cancel notes;27 a promise by a bona fide holder of a note to look to the payee and not to sue the maker;28 a promise to surrender a bill of lading;29 to locate the boundary line between two adjoining tracts of land at a place which is known not to be the true place so as to transfer a tract of land from one to the other;30 to notify a prospective bidder when bids would be let, the adversary party not promising to bid;31 or a promise to act as a bailee,32 are none of them enforceable where nothing was given or promised in return. The practical experience of a new stockholder is no consideration for the corporation's pledging its property to secure his note given for the stock.33 In a renewal of a contract, void for want of consideration, the original contract is no consideration for the new one.34 Such a contract can not be made valid by ratification unless a valuable consideration for such ratification exists.35

The fact that a covenant to pay uses the word "give," does not show conclusively that it is a gratuitous promise.36

20Kessler v. Kuhn, 1 Ind. App. 511, 27 N. E. 980.

21 Chapin v. Brown, 83 la. 156, 32 Am. St. Rep. 297, 12 L. R. A. 428, 48 N. W. 1074.

22 Tulane v. Clifton, 47 N. J. Eq. 351, 20 Atl. 1086 [affirmed, 48 N. J. Eq. 310, 24 Atl. 1311.

23 Myers v. Dean, 132 N. Y. 65, 30 N. E. 259. (A promise to pay a broker for securing a lease which could only be obtained at public auction.)

24Trayes v. Johns, 11 Colo. App. 219, 52 Pac. 1113 [citing Mitchell v. O'Neal, 4 Nev. 504].

25 Gloeckner v. Kittlaus, 192 Mo. 477, 91 S. W. 126.

26 Forrest v. CBryan, 126 la. 571, 102 N. W. 492.

27Templeton v. Butler, 117 Wis. 455, 94 N. W. 306.

28 Muller v. Swanton, 140 Cal. 249, 73 Pac. 994.

29 Hollins v. Hubbard, 165 N. Y. 534, 50 N. E. 317.

30 Lewis v. Ogram, 149 Cal. 505, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 610, 87 Pac. 60.

31Wooten v. S. R. Biggs Drug Co., 169 N. Car. 64, 85 S. E. 140.

32Tomko v. Sharp, 87 N. J. L. 385, 94 Atl. 793.

33 Washington Mill Co. v. Lumber Co., 19 Wash. 165, 52 Pac. 1067.

34Heimann v. Hainz, 65 111. App. 316.