According to the formal statements of law as laid down by the courts, it is well settled that a simple executory promise which is not supported by a valuable consideration is unenforceable as between the parties thereto,1 and

1 England. Rann v. Hughes, 7 T. R. (D. & E.) 350, note a; Cary 5.

United States. Arnold v. Scharbauer, 116 Fed. 492; Patton v. Wells, 121 Fed. 337; Kirby-Carpenter Co. v. Burnett, 144 Fed. 635; United States v. Cooke, 207 Fed. 682.

Alabama. Maness v. Henry, 96 Ala. 454, 11 So. 410; Johnson v. Washburn, 98 Ala. 258, 13 So. 48; Mobile, etc., Co. v. Owen, 121 Ala. 505, 25 So. 612; Consolidated Portrait & Frame Co. v. Barnett, 165 Ala. 655, 51 So. 936.

Arkansas. Thornton v. Bowie, 123 Ark. 463, 185 S. W. 793.

California. Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. 106, 11 Am. St. Rep. 244, 1 L. R. A. 185, 19 Pac. 227; Lewis v. Ogram, 149 Cal. 505, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 610, 87 Pac. 60; Dore v. Southern Pacific Co., 163 Cal. 182, 124 Pac. 817.

Colorado. Currier v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 6, 60 Pac. 958; Cowan v. Howard, 51 Colo. 157, 116 Pac. 153.

Connecticut Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 49 Atl. 854.

Delaware. Corletto v. Morgan, 27 Del. (4 Boyce) 530, 89 Atl. 738.

District of Columbia. Gross v. Steinle, 9 Mackey (D. C.) 339.

Florida. Maloy v. Boyett, 53 Fla. 956, 43 So. 243.

Georgia. Branblet v. Lumsden, 80 Ga. 707, 6 S. E. 470; Russell v. Smith, 97 Ga. 287, 23 S. E. 5; Fowler v. Coker, 107 Ga. 817, 33 S. E. 661.

Illinois. Heartt v. Sherman, 229 III. 581, 82 N. E. 417; Schlatter v. Triebel, 284 111. 412? 120 N. E. 289; South Park C6mmissioners v. Chicago City Ry. Co.,

286 111. 504, 122 N. E. 89; Nelson v. Pickwick Associated Co., 30 111. App. 333; Gaffield v. Scott, 33 111. App. 317.

Indiana. First National Bank v. Henry, 156 Ind. 1, 58 N. E. 1057; Mader v. Coal, 14 Ind. App. 299, 56 Am. St. Rep. 304, 42 N. E. 945.

Iowa. Mills County Bank v. Perry, 72 la. 15, 2 Am. St. Rep. 228, 38 N. W. 341; Smith v. Knight, 88 la. 257, 55 N. W. 189; First National Bank v. Felt, 100 la. 680, 69 N. W. 1057; East Omaha Land Co. v. Hansen, 117 la. 96,90 N. W. 705; Forrest v. O'Bryan, 126 la. 571, 102 N. W. 492; Meginnes v. McChesney, 179 la. 563, 160 N. W. 50 [sub nomine, Meginnes v. Copeland, L. R. A. 1917E, 1060].

Kentucky. Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 21 L. R. A. 127, 19 S. W. 527; Robinson v. Randall, 147 Ky. 45, 143 S. W. 769; F. T. Gunther Grocery Co. v. Koll, 153 Ky. 446, 155 S. W. 1145.

Maine. Howe v. Klein, 89 Me. 376, 36 Atl. 620.

Maryland. Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21, 11 Atl. 284.

Massachusetts. Dickinson v. Hall, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.) 217, 25 Am. Dec. 390; Hendrick v. Ry., 170 Mass. 44, 48 N. E. 835; Houghton v. Granite Co., 171 Mass. 354, 50 N. E. 646.

Michigan. Stewart v. Jerome, 71 Mich. 201, 15 Am. St. Rep. 252, 38 N. W. 895; Harris v. Creveling, 80 Mich. 249, 45 N. W. 85; Damon v. De Bar, 83 Mich. 262, 47 N. W. 216.

Minnesota. Bardwell v. Witt, 42 Minn. 468, 44 N. W. 983.

Missouri. Kelly v.Thuey, 143 Mo.

• as to third persons apart from questions of negotiability2 and estoppel.3 Consideration is one of the essential elements of a simple executory contract, upon which the parties must agree in order to make a contract.4 This proposition is so thoroughly settled in most jurisdictions that it has become an elementary principle in so far that gratuitous promises are rarely presented to the courts except when the absence of consideration is in some way disguised.5 A promise to extend the time of payment of a debt due is unenforceable if made without consideration,6 and such promise does not discharge a surety in jurisdictions in which a binding contract for the extension of time without the consent of the surety operates as a discharge of such surety.7 A promise to extend the time of an option is unenforceable.8 So a promise to release salary already due;9 a promise by an embezzling treasurer to repay in addition to his own shortage that made by his predecessor;10 a promise to make a testamentary disposition of property; 11 a promise by A to divide certain property with his father;12 a promise to release one from a contract,13 or to release a retiring partner from a debt;14 a promise to lend money;15 a promise not to sue;16 a promise by a judgment creditor not to enforce a judgment against a third person (the father-in-law of the promisee) until promisee's claim against a firm, of which the judgment creditor was a member, should have been settled;17 a promise to assign a mortgage;18 a promise to waive a lien;19 a promise to pay pre-

422, 45 S. W. 300; Hicks v. Hamilton, 144 Mo. 495, 66 Am. St. Rep. 431, 46 S. W. 432; George v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 214 Mo. 551, 113 S. W. 1099.

Montana. Murphy v. Nett, 51 Mont. 82, L. R. A. 1915E, 797, 149 Pac. 713.

Nebraska. First National Bank v. Estate of Lehnhoff, 77 Neb. 307, 112 N. W. 563 [affirming on rehearing, First National Bank v. Estate of Lehnhoff, 77 Neb. 303, 109 N. W. 164]; Western Brick & Supply Co. v. Mid-West Construction Co., 101 Neb. 254, 162 N. W. 635.

New Hampshire. Portsmouth Brewing Co. v. Mudge, 68 N. H. 462, 44 Atl. 600.

New Jersey. Tulane v. Clifton, 47 N. J. Eq. 361, 20 Atl. 1086 [affirmed, 48 N. J. Eq. 310, 24 Atl. 131]; Drake v. Lanning, 49 N. J. Eq. 452, 24 Atl. 378; East Ridgelawn Cemetery Co. v. Frank, - N. J. Eq. - , 104 Atl. 594.

New York. Arend v. Smith, 151 N. Y. 502, 45 N. E. 872; Olmstead v. Latimer, 158 N. Y. 313, 43 L. R. A. 685, 53 N. E. 5; Hollins v. Hubbard, 165 N. Y. 534, 59 N. E. 317; Adams v. Gillig, 199 N. Y. 314, 92 N. E. 670.

North Carolina. Sugg v. Farrar, 107 N. Car. 123, 12 S. E. 236; Gardner v. Ry., 127 N. Car. 293, 37 S. E. 328; Hardison v. Reel, 154 N. Car. 273, 70 S. E. 463.

North Dakota. Peckham v. Van Bergen, 10 N. D. 43, 84 N. W. 566.

Oklahoma. Zebold v. Hurst, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917F, 579, 166 Pac. 99.