The consideration may consist (b) of a legal right which B gives up often to some third person, X, and of which A does not receive the benefit. Such consideration is sufficient.1 A discharge of a debt due from a third person to the promisee;2 or a claim in tort;3 or forbearanee to sue for a certain time on a debt due from a third person;4 assuming contract obligations of a third person;5

9 See Sec. 535.

1 Schlatter v. Triebel, 284 11l. 412, 120 N. E. 289; Roller v. McGraw, 63 W. Va. 462, 60 S. E. 410; see Sec. 542 et seq.

2 Roberts v. Lamberton, 117 Wis. 635, 94 N. W. 650.

3 Schlatter v. Triebel, 284 11l. 412, 120 N. E. 289.

1 United States. Townsley v. Sum-rail, 27 U. S. (2 Pet.) 170, 7 L. ed. 386; United States v. Linn, 40 U. S. (15 Pet.) 290, 10 L. ed. 742; Rucker v. Bolles, 80 Fed. 504, 25 C. C. A. 600.

Colorado. Reed v. Bank, 23 Colo. 380, 48 Pac. 507.

Connecticut. Cowles v. Peck, 55 Conn. 251, 3 Am. St. Rep. 44, 10 Atl. 569; Garland v. Gaines, 73 Conn. 662, 84 Am. St. Rep. 182, 49 Atl. 19; Markel v. De Francesco, - Conn. - , 105 Atl. 703.

Georgia. Sanders v. Carter, 01 Ga. 450, 17 S. E. 345.

Illinois. Harris v. Harris, 180 111. 157, 54 N. E. 180 [affirming, 80 III. App. 310, 79 111. App. 2881; Andrews v. Kingsbury, 212 III. 97, 72 N. E. 11.

Indiana. Crawford v. Shaw, 18 Ind. 495.

Iowa. Pratt v. Fishwild, 121 la. 642, 96 N. W. 1089; Moench v. Hower, 137 la. 621, 115 N. W. 229; Anderson v. Lemker, 180 la. 167, 162 N. W. 7.

Kansas. Emerson-Brantinghara Co. v. Lyons, 102 Kan. 733, 172 Pac. 513.

Kentucky. Allen v. Pryor, 10 Ky. (3 A. K. Mar.) 305; Brady v. Equitable Trust Co., 178 Ky. 693, 199 S. W. 1082.

Michigan. First National Bank v. Johnson, 133 Mich. 700, 103 Am. St. Rep. .468, 95 N. W. 975.

Minnesota. Osborne v. Gullikson, 64 Minn. 218, 66 N. W. 965.

Missouri. Houck v. Frisbee, 66 Mo. App. 16.

Nebraska. Faulkner v. Gilbert, 57 Neb. 544, 77 N. W. 1072; Henry v. Dus-sell 71 Neb. 691, 99 N. W. 484; Patrick v. Barker, 78 Neb. 823, 112 N. W. 358.

New Hampshire. Woodward v. Bix-by, 68 N. H. 219, 44 Atl. 298.

New Jersey. Holt v. United Security Life Ins. & Trust Co., 74 N. J. L. 795, 67 Atl. 118; Thompson v. Peppier, 91 N. J. 160, 102 Atl. 379.

New York. Beakes v. Da Cunha, 126 N. Y. 293, 27 N. E. 251.

North Carolina. Bank v. Bridgers, 98 N. Car. 67, 2 Am. St. Rep. 317, 3 S. E. 826; Cherokee County v. Meroney, 173 N. Car. 653, 92 S. E. 616.

Ohio. Dalrymple v. Wyker, 60 O. S. 108, 53 N. E. 713.

Oklahoma. Riddle v. Hudson, - Okla. - , 172 Pac. 921.

Oregon. Manary v. Runyon, 43 Or. 495, 73 Pac. 1028.

South Carolina. Davis v. Blum, 104 S. Car. 218, 88 S. E. 465.

South Dakota. Clement v. Rowe, 33 S. D. 499, 146 N. W. 700.

Vermont. Lyndon Savings Bank v. International Co., 78 Vt. 169, 112 Am. St. Rep. 900, 62 Atl. 50.

Wyoming. Barrett v. Mahnken, 6 Wyom. 541, 71 Am. St Rep. 953, 48 Pac. 202.

2 Alabama. Hughes v. Young, 25 Ala. 483.

New Hampshire. Peterborough & Shirley Railroad v. Chamberiin, 44 N. H. 494.

Illinois. Harris v. Harris, 180 III 157, 54 N. E. 180 [aflirming, 80 III. App. 310; same case, 79 111. App. 2881.

Kansas. Wright v. McKitrick, 2 Kan. App. 508, 43 Pac. 977.

Wisconsin. Union, etc., Bank v. Jefferson, 101 Wis. 452, 77 N. W. 889.

3 Barrett v. Mahnken, 6 Wyom. 541, 71 Am. St. Rep. 953, 48 Pac. 202.

4 Connecticut. Markel v. De Fran-cesco, - Conn. - , 105 Atl. 703.

Illinois. Webb v. Stone Co., 58 111. App. 222; McMicken v. Safford, 100 111. App. 102, 64 N. E. 540.

Indiana. Fulton v. Loughlin, 118 Ind. 286, 20 N. E. 796.

Kentucky. Cooper v. Jackson (Ky.), 57 S. W. 254; Howard v. Lawrence (Ky.), 63 S. W. 589.

Minnesota. Osborne v. Doherty, 38 Minn. 430, 38 N. W. 111.

South Carolina. Fowler v. Allen, 32 S. Car. 229, 7 L. R. A. 745, 10 S. E. 947.

5Ford v. Ingles Coal Co. (Ky.), 102 S. W. 332.

a waiver of a right to rescind a contract with a third person on account of fraud;6 conveyance of realty to a third person;7 a sale of realty for which the purchase price is to be paid to a third person;8 a release of an estate expectant in curtesy to a third person, the grantee of the wife;9 a purchase of realty, in reliance on a tenant's promise to surrender;10 a sale of business by a tenant and surrender to the purchaser,11 or conveying personalty to a third person,12 as a direction by the owner of a house to a sub-contractor to furnish material and labor for extras makes the owner liable for the same when furnished;l3 consenting to a former lessee's remaining in possession of chattels after the expiration of his lease as consideration for a promise by the lessor to furnish another machine to the lessee;14 an agreement by the promisee to give something of value to a third person;15 advancing money to a third person in reliance upon the promisor's contract,16 as by way of loan;" or giving a receipt which cost the promisee nothing, but enabled the promisor to settle accounts with a third

6 Waters v. White, 75 Conn. 88, 52 Atl. 401.

7 Johnson v. Rodeger, 119 N. Car. 446, 25 S. E. 1021.

8 Garten v. Layton, 76 W. Va. .63, 84 S. E. 1058.

9Demarest v. Terhune, 62 N. J. Eq. 663, 50 Atl. 664 (consideration for a note given by the wife).

10 Moore v. Davis, 49 N. H. 45, 6 Am. Rep. 460.

11 Donahoe v. Rich, 2 Ind. App. 540, 28 N. E. 1001.

12 Lipsmeier v. Vehslage, 29 Fed. 175; Anderson v. Lemker, 180 la. 167, 162 N. W. 7; Akers v. Phillips (Ky.), 58 S. W. 790; Thompson v. Peppier, 91 N. J. 160, 102 Atl. 379.

13 Foley v. Hotel Association, 102 la. 272, 71 N. W. 236.

14 Phoenix Cement Sidewalk Co. v. Russellville Water & Light Co., 101 Ark. 22, 140 S. W. 996.

15United States. Violett v. Patton, 9 U. S. (5 Cranch) 142, 3 L. ed. 61; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 15.

California. Westphal v. Neville, 92 Cal. 545, 28 Pac. 678.

Illinois. Wickham v. Loan Association, 80 111. App. 523.

Indiana, Shaffer v. Ryan, 84 Ind. 140.

Iowa. Marr v. Ry., 121 la. 117, 96 N. W. 716.

Maryland. Holland v. Lee, 71 Md. 338, 18 Atl. 661; Heyman v. Dooley, 77 Md. 162, 20 L. R. A. 257, 26 Atl. 117.

Minnesota. Osborne v. Gullikson, 64 Minn. 218, 66 N. W. 965.

Missouri. Strode v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 616, 95 S. W. 851.

Nebraska. Lewis v. Owen, 26 Neb. 156, 42 N. W. 285.

Pennsylvania. Freed v. Richey, 115 Pa. St. 361, 8 Atl. 626.

In some of these cases the payee of the obligation is a corporation in which promisor holds stock. Chicago, etc.,

Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 15; Holland v. Lee, 71 Md. 338, 18 Atl. 661.

16Knapp v. Tidewater Coal Co., 85 Conn. 147, 81 Atl. 1063; First National Bank v. Johnson, 133 Mich. 700, 103 Am. St. Rep. 468, 95 N. W. 975; Elmer v. Loper, 66 N. J. L. 50, 48 Atl. 550; see Sec. 549.

17 Lackey v. Boruff, 152 Ind. 371, 53 person,11 are all valuable considerations for a promise by one who does not receive the benefits of the right forborne by the promisee. So extension of credit by A to B is consideration for C's promise to A to guarantee B's debt.19 So a promise by a grantee of realty to pay a debt of the grantor's to a third person finds sufficient consideration in the conveyance to such grantee.20 An extension of time given by B to X is consideration for A's promise to B to pay such debt if X does not.21 The consent of one partner to the admission of a purchaser of another partner's interest as a member of the firm is sufficient consideration for the promise of a third person to such consenting partner to pay one-half of the debts of such firm, so that such consenting partner can enforce such promise.22 A promise by A, a creditor of a corporation, who wishes a sale of the property of the corporation, which is made to B, who was the only creditor of such corporation who has paid his subscription, by the terms of which A agrees to pay a certain sum of money to B, in consideration of B's consent to the sale of the corporation property, is supported by sufficient consideration.23 A's sale of goods to X is a consideration for B's promise to A to withhold for A's security, money due from B to X, to which X assents.24 A's making a contract with X is a consideration for B's endorsement of X's note to A.25 The doctrines discussed in this section are often modified by the doctrines of status. Thus where a married woman can contract only for her separate estate, a release of a claim by a third person against her husband for assault, is no consideration for her promise in some jurisdictions.

N. E. 412; Fassnacht v. Gagen Co., 18 Ind. App. 80, 63 Am. St. Rep. 322, 46 N. E. 45, 47 N. E. 480; Clare County Savings Bank v. Goodman, 119 Mich. 338, 78 N. W. 135; Mahoney v. Barber, 67 Minn. 308, 69 N. W. 886.

18 Sanders v. Carter, 91 Ga. 450, 17 S. E. 345.

19 Reed v. Bank, 23 Colo. 380, 48 Pac. 507; Cowles v. Peck, 55 Conn. 251, 3 Am. St. Rep. 44, 10 Atl. 569; Garland v. Gaines, 73 Conn. 662, 84 Am. St. Rep. 182, 49 Atl. 19; First National Bank v. Johnson, 133 Mich. 700, 103 Am. St. Rep. 468, 95 N. W. 975; Woodward v. Bixby, 68 N. H. 219, 44 Atl. 298.

20 See Sec. 642 and ch. LXXIII.

21 Knight & Wall Co. v. Tampa Sand Lime Brick Co., 55 Fla. 728, 46 So. 285;

Queal v. Peterson, 138 la. 514, 116 N. W. 593.

22 Pratt v. Fishwild, 121 Ia. 642, 96 N. W. 1089. (Such third person was already liable as surety for many of the debts of such firm, of which his son was a member; and the admission of the purchaser of such interest into the firm was a part of the sale of such interest, the proceeds of which were paid to such third person.)

23 Bauer v. Northwest Blowpipe Co., 75 Or. 1, 146 Pac. 129.

24 Fairbanks v. Tafel, 159 Ky. 602, 167 S. W. 887.

25Hobson v. Marsh, 69 Wash. 326, 124 Pac. 912; Mawhinney v. Cassio, 63 N. J. L. 412, 43 Atl. 676.