This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A good consideration was sufficient in equity to support a covenant to stand seised to uses.1 It operated as a rebuttal of the presumption of a resulting trust wherever a presumption of a resulting trust arose by reason of a gratuitous common-law conveyance of realty or where the purchase money was paid by one and the legal title was taken in the name of another,2 as in case of a conveyance to the grantor's wife3 or child.4 In this sense the good consideration, as distinguished from the valuable consideration, still exists in the law of real property, and is sufficient to uphold an executed conveyance where any consideration is necessary,5 and it will support a gift, such as a gift of a fund in a savings bank.6
7 Lee v. Henley, 1 Vernon Ch. 37; McDonald v. McMillan, 14 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 90. (Conveyances to a niece, Studybaker v. Cofield, 159 Mo. 596, 61 S. W. 246, or to a nephew, Coombe v. Carthew, 59 N. J. Eq. 638, 43 Atl. 1057, have been upheld; though in the last cases there were apparently other considerations than mere love and affection.)
8 Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 148.
9 Cotton v. Graham, 84 Ky. 672, 2 S. W. 647.
10 Cotton v. Graham, 84 Ky. 672, 2 S. W. 647. (Obiter, as the question arose on demurrer and a valuable consideration was pleaded.)
1 England. Sharington v. Stratton, 1 Plowd. 298.
Minnesota. Hope v. Stone, 10 Minn. 141.
New Hampshire. Rollins v. Riley, 44 N. H. 9.
New York. Jackson v. Sebring, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 515, 8 Am. Dec. 357.
North Carolina. Slade v. Smith, 2 N. Car. 248.
"Natural love and affection is very sufficient to create a use, and will amount to a covenant to stand seized though no other consideration appear." Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 148.
2 England. Rogers v. Rogers, 3 P. Wms. 193; Smith v. Ring, 16 East. 283; Dunbar v. Dunbar , 2 Ch. 639.
Indiana. Lochenour v. Lochenour, 61 Ind. 595.
Missouri. Viers v. Viers, 175 Mo. 444, 75 S. W. 395.
Nebraska. Bailey v. Dobbins, 67 Neb. 548, 93 N. W. 687.
Ohio. Creed v. Lancaster Bank, 1 O. S. 1.
Rhode Island. Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, 23 Atl. 57.
West Virginia. Lorentz v. Lorentz, 14 W. Va. 809; Hamilton v. Steele, 22 W. Va. 348.
3 Christ's Hospital v. Budgin, 2 Vera. 683; Dunbar v. Dunbar , 2 Ch. 639.
4 Jennings v. Selleck, 1 Vern. 467; Grey v. Grey, 2 Swans. 594.