Contra, Nine v. Starr, 8 Or. 49.

3 Illinois Central R. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 164 N. W. 208 [opinion modified on petition for rehearing, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 165 N. W. 903].

4W. G. Root Construction Co. v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 85 N J. L. 645, 90 Atl. 271.

5 W. G. Root Construction Co. v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 85 N. J. L. 645, 90 Atl. 271.

6Wimer v. Worth Township, 104 Pa. St 317.

1 England. Harris v. Carter, 3 E. & B. 559; Stilk v. Myrick, 2 Camp. 317.

Alabama. Johnson v. Sellers, 33 Ala. 265; McDonough v. Saunders, - Ala. - , 78 So. 160.

Arkansas. Feldman v. Fox, 112 Ark. 223, 164 S. W. 766.

California. Ellison v. Water Co., 12 Cal. 542.

Colorado. Benford v. Yockey, - Colo. - , 164 Pac. 725.

District of Columbia. Littlepage v. Neale Publishing Co., 34 D. C. App. 257.

Illinois. Bonney v. Bonney, 237 111. 452, 86 N. E. 1048.

Indiana. Peelman v. Peelman, 4 Ind 612.

Iowa. Bender v. Been, 78 la. 283, 5 L. R. A. 596, 43 N. W. 216; Barringer v. Ryder, 119 la. 121, 93 N. W. 56; Awe v. Gadd, 179 la. 520, 161 N. W. 671.

Kentucky. Combs v. Burt & Brabb Lumber Co. (Ky.), 85 S. W. 227, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 439.

Maine. Westcott v. Mitchell, 95 Me. 377, 50 Atl. 21.

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

Minnesota. King v. Ry. Co., 61 Minn. 482, 63 N. W. 1106.

Mississippi. Bell v. Oates, 97 Miss. 790, 53 So. 491.

Missouri. Lingenfelder v. Brewing Co., 103 Mo. 578, 15 S. W. 844.

Montana. Easterly v. Jackson, 29 Mont. 496, 75 Pac. 357.

New York. Arend v. Smith, 151 N. Y. 502, 45 N. E. 872; Weed v. Spears, 193 N. Y. 289, 86 N. E. 10.

Oklahoma. Bowers v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., - Okla. - , 169 Pac. 633.

Oregon. Feenaughty v. Beall (Or.), 178 Pac. 600.

Utah. Smith v. Brown, - Utah - , 165 Pac. 468.

Vermont. Creamery Package Mfg. Co. v. Russell, 84 Vt. 80, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 135, 78 Atl. 718.

Virginia. Rowland Lumber Co. v. Ross, 100 Va. 275, 40 S. E. 922 (obiter).

Washington. Wadhams v. Page, 1 Wash. 420, 25 Pac. 462.

West Virginia. Thomas v. Mott, 74 W. Va. 493, 82 S. E. 325; Vance v. Ellison, 76 W. Va. 592, 85 S. E. 776; Whan v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 81 W. Va. 338, 94 S. E. 365.

If A assigns to C a claim against B which is to become due only on A's performance of certain covenants, C's performance as assignee is not a consideration for B's promise to pay C, so as to affect the rights of attaching creditors. Whan v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 81 W. Va. 338, 94 S. E. 365.

See Successive Promises of the Same Performance, by Samuel Williston, 8 Harvard Law Review, 27; Two Theories of Consideration, by James Barr Ames, 13 Harvard Law Review, 29; Notes on Consideration, by Joseph H. Beale, 17 Harvard Law Review, 71.

2 Alaska Packers' Association v. Do-menico, 117 Fed. 99, 54 C. C. A. 485; C. H. Davis Co. v. Morgan, 117 Ga. 504, 97 Am. St. Rep. 171, 61 L. R. A. 148, 43 S. E. 732. (No consideration for an agreement changing compensation but not changing services due.)

3Hillman v. Young, 64 Or. 73, 129 Pac. 124 [denying rehearing, 64 Or. 73, 127 Pac. 793].

4 See Sec. 585 et seq.

5 England. Jackson v. Cobbin, 8 M. & W. 790.

Alabama. Johnson v. Sellers, 33 Ala. 265; Clark v. Jones, 85 Ala. 127.

Arkansas. Feldman v. Fox, 112 Ark. 223, 164 S. W. 766,

California. Ellison v. Water Co., 12 Cal. 542.

Colorado. Benford v. Yockey, - Colo. - , 164 Pac. 725.

Illinois. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rink, 110 111. 538.

Indiana. Ford v. Garner, 15 Ind. 298; Reynolds v. Nugent, 25 Ind. 328; Rite-nour v. Mathews, 42 Ind. 7.

Iowa. Runkle v. Kettering, 127 la. 6, 102 N. W. 142; Awe v. Gadd, 179 la. 520, 161 N. W. 671.

Kentucky. Eblin v. Miller, 78 Ky. 371; Combs v. Burt & Brabb Lumber Co. (Ky.), 85 S. W. 227, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 439.

Maine. Westcott v. Mitchell, 95 Me. 377, 50 Atl. 21.

Massachusetts. Parrot v. Mexican Central Ry. Co., 207 Mass. 184, 93 N. E. 590.

Minnesota. Davidson v. Benefit Society, 39 Minn. 303, 1 L. R. A. 482, 39 N. W. 803; King v. Ry. Co., 61 Minn. 482, 63 N. W. 1105.

Montana. Easterly v. Jackson, 29 Mont. 496, 75 Pac. 357.

Nebraska. Esterly Harvesting Machine Co. v. Pringle, 41 Neb. 265, 59 N. W. 804.

New Jersey. Watts v. Frenche, 19 N. J. Eq. 407.

New York. Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 392; Seybolt v. R. R., 95 N. Y. 562, 47 Am. Rep. 75; Arend v. Smith, 151 N. Y. 502, 45 N. E. 872.

North Dakota. Gaar v. Green, 6 N. D. 48, 68 N. W. 318.

Pennsylvania. Erb v. Brown, 69 Pa. St. 216.

Utah. Smith v. Brown, - Utah - , 165 Pac. 468.

Vermont. Cobb v. Cowdery, 40 Vt. 25, 94 Am. Dec. 370.

Virginia. Keffer v. Grayson, 76 Va. 517, 44 Am. Rep. 171; Rowland Lumber Co. v. Ross, 100 Va. 275, 40 S. E. 922 (obiter).

West Virginia. Thomas v. Mott, 74 W. Va. 493, 82 S. E. 325.

6McDonou'gh v. Saunders, - Ala. - , 78 So. 160.

7 Easterly v. Jackson, 29 Mont. 496, 75 Pac. 357.

8 Able v. Gunter, 174 Ala, 389, 57 So. 464.

9 Watts v. Parks (Ky.), 78 S. W. 1125.

10Runkle v. Kettering, 127 la. 6, 102 N. W. 142.

11Neikirk v. Williams, 81 W. Va. 558, 94 S. E. 947.

12 Ford v. Garner, 15 Ind. 298; Rite-nour v. Mathews, 42 Ind. 7.

13 Bowers v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., - Okla. - , 169 Pac. 633.

14 Arend v. Smith, 151 N. Y. 502, 45 N. E. 872. (This case seems to ignore the rule that a change in form from a non-negotiable to a negotiable debt is a consideration.) See Sec. 544.

15Sherwin v. Brigham, 39 O. S. 137.

16 Lingenfelder v. Brewing Co., 103 Mo. 578, 15 S. W. 844. To the same effect see Willingham, etc., Co. v. Drew, 117 Ga. 850, 45 S. E. 237.

17 Combs v. Burt & Brabb Lumber Co. (Ky.), 85 S. W. 227, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 439.

18 Jones v. Risley, 01 Tex. 1, 32 S. W. 1027. (Where there is no breach to justify him in abandoning the contract.)

19Gaar v. Green, 6 N. D. 48, 68 N. W. 318.

20Widiman v. Brown, 83 Mich. 241, 47 N. W. 231.

21 Stilk v. Myrick, 2 Camp. 317; Bart-lett v. Wyman, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 260.

22Feldman v. Fox, 112 Ark. 223, 164 S. W. 766.

23 Lewis v. McReavey, 7 Wash. 294, 34 Pac. 832.

24 Davidson v. Benefit Society, 39 Minn. 303, 1 L R. A. 432, 39 N. W. 803.

25Charch v. Charch, 57 O. S. 561, 49 N. E. 408. (No consideration for her surrender of her own property.)

26 Easterly v. Jackson, 29 Mont. 496, 75 Pac. 357.

27 Tarnow v. Cannichael, 82 Neb. 1, 116 N. W. 1031.

28 Forsythe v. Murnane, 119 Minn. 181,129 N. W. 134.

Whether there is sufficient consideration to render the contract, which is made to secure performance of the former contract, valid and enforceable as between the parties or not, third persons may take advantage of the actual legal situation which is created by such new contract.31 If B has agreed to construct a building for A for a specified consideration, and B is unable to perform such contract by reason of his insolvency, and to induce such performance, A promises to pay for labor and material, X, who has furnished property to B after such arrangement between A and B, may recover against A on the theory that such arrangement between A and B made B the agent of A.32