A definition of valuable consideration which has been quoted frequently and with approval by English and American courts is as follows: "A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit, accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other."1 This definition, as is indicated elsewhere,2 has been repeated by courts which have insisted, at the same time, that a consideration which moved to the promisor was insufficient unless it moved from the promisee. This definition has been repeated, literally or substantially, and it has been said again and again that a consideration is a benefit to the promisor,3 or a detriment to the promisee.4 If the act or promise is at the same time a benefit to the promisor and a detriment to the promisee, it falls within the definition of consideration.5

5 For a discussion of illegality under the topic of consideration, see Void, Illegal or Unenforceable Consideration, by Wm. P. Rogers, 17 Yale Law Jour. 338.

1 Currie v. Misa, L. R. 10 Exch. 153 (162) [citing Comyn's Digest, action on the case, Assumpsit B, 1-15]. For -identical or similar definitions, see Anson on Contracts (Fourteenth Edition), 06; Harriman on Contracts (Second Edition) Sec. 01.

For other identical or similar definitions see:

Georgia. Hill v. Horsley, 142 Ga. 12, 82 S. E. 225.

Illinois. People v. Commercial Insurance Co., 247 111. 02, 03 N. E. 00.

Indian Territory. Doherty v. Arkansas & Oklahoma R. R. Co., 5 Ind. Terr. 537, 82 S. W. 800.

Kansas. Grant v. Isett, 81 Kan. 246, 105 Pac. 1021; Sigler v. Sigler, 08 Kan. 524, L. R. A. 1017A, 725, 158 Pac. 864.

Kentucky. Brady v. Equitable Trust Co., 178 Ky. 603, 100 S. W. 1082.

Minnesota. Anderson v. Nystrom,

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

North Carolina. Cherokee County v. Maroney, 173 N. Car. 653, 02 S. E. 616; Acme Manufacturing Co. v. McCormick, 175 N. Car. 277, L. R. A. 1018F, 572, 95 S. E. 555.

Oklahoma. Ball v. White, 150 Pac. 001; Riddle v. Hudson (Okla.), 172 Pac. 021.

Oregon. Butson v. Misz, 81 Or. 607, 160 Pac. 530.

West Virginia. Roller v. McGraw, 63 W. Va. 462, 60 S. E. 410.

Wisconsin. Drovers' Deposit National Bank v. Tichenor, 156 Wis. 251, 145 N. W. 777.

2 See Sec. 527 et seq.

3 Florida. Robinson v. Hyer, 35 Fla. 544, 17 So. 745.

Georgia. Sanders v. Carter, 91 Ga. 450, 17 S. E. 345; Hill v. Horsley, 142 Ga. 12, 82 S. E. 225.

Illinois. People v. Commercial Ins. Co., 247 111. 02, 03 N. E. 00; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. R. Co., 81 111. App. 435.

Indian Territory. Doherty v. Arkansas & Oklahoma R. R. Co., 5 Ind. Terr. 537, 82 S. W. 899.

Kansas. Grant v. Isett, 81 Kan. 246, 105 Pac. 1021; Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524, L. R. A. 1917A, 725, 158 Pac. 864.

Nebraska. Joseph v. Smith, 39 Neb. 259, 42 Am. St. Rep. 571, 57 N. W. 1012.

New Jersey. Tulane v. Clifton, 47 N. J. Eq. 351, 20 Atl.-1086 [affirmed, 47 N. J. Eq. 310, 24 Atl. 131]; Carle v. Monkhouse, 50 N. J. Eq. 537, 25 Atl. 157.

North Carolina. Cherokee County v. Meroney, 173 N. Car. 653, 92 S. E. 616.

Oklahoma. Ball v. White, 150 Pac. 901; Riddle v. Hudson, - Okla. - , 172 Pac. 921.

Oregon. Butson v. Misz, 81 Or. 607, 160 Pac. 530.

Texas. Texas, etc., Co. v. Fire Co., 54 Tex. 319, 38 Am. Rep. 627.

Wisconsin. Drovers' Deposit Nat. Bank v. Tichenor, 156 Wis. 251, 145 N. W. 777.

In order that a promise may amount to a consideration it has been said that "an advantage must accrue therefrom to the promisee or a loss or disadvantage to be sustained by the promisor." Anderson v. Nystrom, 103 Minn. 168, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1141, 114 N. W. 742.

4 United States. Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. 504.

Alabama. Holt v. Robinson, 21 Ala. 106, 56 Am. Dec. 240.

Connecticut. Mascolo v. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 29 Am. St. Rep. 170, 23 Atl. 714.

Georgia. Hill v. Horsley, 142 Ga. 12, 82 S. E. 225.

Iowa. Riegel v. Ormsby, 111 la. 10, 82 N. W. 432; Moench v. Hower, 137 la. 621, 115 N. W. 229.

Kansas. Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan.

524, L. R. A. 1917A, 725, 158 Pac. 864.

Kentucky. Van Winkle v. King, 145 Ky. 691, 141 S. W. 46; Miller v. Davis, 168 Ky. 661, 182 S. W. 839.

Maine. Fisher v. Bartlett, 8 Greenl. 122, 22 Am. Dec. 225; Hilton v. South-wick, 17 Me. 303, 35 Am. Dec. 253; Chick v. Travett, 20 Me. 462, 37 Am. Dec. 68.

Massachusetts. Adams v. Wilson, 53 Mass. (12 Met.) 138, 45 Am. Dec. 240; Doyle v. Dixon, 97 Mass. 208, 93 Am. Dec 80.

Nebraska. Faulkner v. Gilbert, 57 Neb. 544, 77 N. W. 1072; Henry v. Dussell, 71 Neb. 691, 99 N. W. 484; Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 128 N. W. 527; Southern Realty Co. v. Hannon, 89 Neb. 802, 132 N. W. 533.

New York. Wells v. Mann, 45 N. Y. 327, 6 Am. Rep. 93.

North Carolina. Reddick v. Jones,. 28 N. Car. (6 Ired. Law) 107, 44 Am. Dec 68; Brown v. Ray, 32 N. Car. (10 Ired. Law) 72, 51 Am. Dec. 379; Bank v. Bridgers, 98 N. Car. 67, 2 Am. St. Rep. 317, 3 S. E. 826; Kirkman v. Hod-gin, 151 N. Car. 588, 66 S. E. 616.

Ohio. Dalrymple v. Wyker, 60 O. S. 108, 53 N. E. 713; Wright v. Snell, 22 Ohio C. C. 86, 12 Ohio C. D. 308.

Oklahoma. Ball v. White (Okla.), 150 Pac. 901.

Oregon. Bunneman v. Wagner, 16 Or. 433, 8 Am. St. Rep. 306, 18 Pac. 841; Rector v. Wood, 24 Or. 396, 41 Am. St. Rep. 860, 34 Pac. 18; Butson v. Misz, 81 Or. 607, 160 Pac. 530.

Pennsylvania. Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts (Pa.) 104, 26 Am. Dec. 107; Davis v. Steiner, 14 Pa. St. 275, 53 Am. Dec. 547.

Wisconsin. Drovers' Deposit Nat. Bank v. Tichenor, 156 Wis. 251, 145 N. W. 777.

5 "Any act which is a benefit to one party and a disadvantage to the other,

Other definitions have been suggested, a few of which are given:

"The civilians hold that in all contracts, either express or implied, there must be something given in exchange, something that is mutual or reciprocal. This thing, which is the price or motive of the contract, we call the consideration; and it must be a thing lawful in itself, or else the contract is void."6