In determining whether consideration exists or not, the necessary conditions which are involved in the acceptance of a gratuitous promise must be distinguished from the acts, forbearances or promises on the part of the promisee, which amount to a consideration. If A promises to make a gratuitous present to B, such present can not be made unless B accepts it. B's acceptance is one of the elements of the gift, and his promise to accept is therefore a statement in full of a necessary condition of making the gift, and not a consideration which will make the promise enforceable.1 Most of the authority on this question is found in cases in which A offers to permit B to live on a certain piece of land without paying rent. Change of residence may be a valuable consideration if so intended by the parties.2 If, however, A's promise to permit B to occupy a certain tract of land without paying rent is gratuitous, and if B's act in moving upon such land is intended merely as the only condition upon which B can in fact enjoy such land, B's act in moving upon such land is not a consideration for A's promise.3 If A offers to B a home with A and support, as a matter of charity, B's act in removing to A's home so as to obtain such support is not a consideration for A's promise.4 A's promise to convey or devise a farm to B in consideration of B's leaving his own home and coming to A's farm to live, and upon condition that B would make a success of managing such farm, and on further condition that no cause, then unknown or unforeseen, would prevent, was held not to be supported by sufficient consideration.5

19 Rose v. Oliver, 32 Or. 447, 52 Pac. 176.

20 English v. Landon, 181 111. 614, 54 N. E. 911.

21 Sully v. Childress, 106 Tenn. 109, 82 Am. St. Rep. 875, 60 S. W. 499.

22Wadin v. Czuczka, 16 Ariz. 371, 146 Pac. 491.

23 See Sec. 549 et seq.

24 Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 Conn. 523; Boyd v. Freize, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 553; Reed v. Evans, 17 Ohio 128.

25Hughes v. Lansing, 34 Or. 118, 75 Am. St. Rep. 574, 55 Pac. 95.