A transfer of property rights in realty is a valuable consideration.1 Even a conveyance of the mere legal title is a consideration. Thus a conveyance of property to be held in trust is a consideration for a promise by trustee to undertake the trust.2 The release by a trustee of his legal title, the trustee being entitled to commissions for his services, is consideration.3 The conveyance need not be in fee. Thus the assignment of a lease,4 even if voidable by re-entry by grantor;5 the surrender of rentals of realty to a lienholder; 6 a life tenant's permission to allow his realty to be leased for the benefit of others;7 surrender of possession by a lessee,8 and a contract between landlord and tenant to work land on shares,9 are each valuable considerations. Release of contingent interests in realty is a valuable consideration, such as the release of a husband's interest in his wife's property,10 or a wife's inchoate right of dower,11 or of homelOLuttrell v. Boggs, 168 I11. 361, 48 N. E. 171; Wall v. Stapleton, 177 I11. 357, 52 N. E. 477 [affirming 72 111. App. 614]; McNutt v. McNutt, 116 Ind. 545, 2L. R.A. 372, 19 N. E. 115; Huffman v. Copeland, 139 Ind. 221, 38 N. E. 861.

7See Sec. 1430.

8 Scheeline v. Moshier, 172 Cal. 565, 158 Pac. 222.

9 Erickson v. Robertson, 116 Minn. 90, 87 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1133, 133 N. W. 164.

10Erickson v. Robertson, 116 Minn. 90, 37 L. R. A (N.S.) 1133, 133 N. W. 164.

1Indiana. Case v. Collins, 37 Ind. App. 491, 76 N. E. 781.

Michigan. Hanold v. Kays, 64 Mich. 439, 8 Am. St. Rep. 835, 31 N. W. 42ft).

Minnesota. Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 203, 47 N. W. 642; Baxter v. Brandenburg, 137 Minn. 259, 163 N. W. 516.

Nebraska. Goos v. Goos, 57 Neb. 294, 77 N. W. 687.

South Carolina. Alexander v. Mc-Daniel, 56 S. Car. 252, 34 S. E. 405.

Texas. Busby v. Bush, 79 Tex. 656, 15 S. W. 638.

2 United States. McKee v. Lamon, 159 U. S. 317, 40 L. ed. 165.

Illinois. Switzer v. Skiles, 8 I11. 529, 44 Am. Dec. 723.

Indiana. Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 393, 53 L. R. A. 963, 53 N. E. 767.

Kentucky. Cumberland Valley Bank's Assignee v. Bank (Ky.), 78 S. W. 889.

New Hampshire. Hammond v. Hus-sey, 51 N. H. 40, 12 Am. Rep. 41.

North Carolina. Brown v. Ray, 32 N. Car. (10 Ired. Law) 72, 51 Am. Dec. 379.

Texas. Pires v. Snodgrass, 91 Tex. 105, 41 S. W. 68. But the receipt of trust property by a bishop is no consideration for a promise by him to pay the debts of his predecessor. Baxter v. McDonnell, 155 N. T. 83, 40 L. R. A. 670, 49 N. E. 667.

3 Hiss v. Hiss, 228 III. 414, 81 N. E. 1056.

4 Edwards v. Spalding, 20 Mont. 54, 60, 49 Pac. 443 [rehearing refused, 49 Pac. 591].

5 Spear v. Fuller, 8 N. H. 174, 28 Am. Dec. 391.

6Rogers v. Central Loan & Trust Co., 49 Neb. 676, 68 N. W. 1048. The use of the upper floor of a building rent free is a consideration for the assignment of a lease of the building. Curtis v. Portsmouth, 67 N. H. 506, 39 Atl. 439.

7Riddle v. Riddle (Ky.), 80 S. W. 1129.

8 Wilke v. Weedman, 149 la. 398, 128 N. W. 356.

9 Reynolds v. Chynoweth, 68 Vt. 104, 34 Atl. 36.

11 Illinois. Clay v. Clay, 23 III. App. 109; Gould v. Banking Co., 36 III. App. 390.

Indiana. Worley v. Sipe, 111 Ind. 238, 12 N. E. 385; McNutt v. McNutt, 116 Ind. 545, 2 L. R. A. 372, 19 N. E. 115.

stead and dower,12 or the interest of a grantee by deed in escrow.13 An instrument delivered by B to his father, A, whereby B waives all claim to A's estate, is sufficient consideration for a note given by A to B.14 If such interest passes by a warranty deed it will pass whatever interest descends to the heir, and is a consideration.15 If such interest passes by a quitclaim deed no interest of any sort passes,16 and such conveyance is no consideration. So the conveyance of an equitable interest,17 such as an equity of redemption;18 forbearance to redeem after sale of mortgaged property in foreclosure proceedings,19 even if the right to redeem belongs only to the creditors and not to the mortgagor;20 or a right to redeem from a tax sale;21 or rights under an executory contract for the sale of certain realty;22 or a transfer by a defective deed good in equity,23 is a consideration. So a conveyance of mere possessory rights, such as the surrender of a timber culture entry,24 or a homestead entry,25 even if the promisor does not acquire such property;26 a promise by one holding under a homestead entry to perfect his title and give a new mortgage;27or a promise to assign a claim to an entry on land on affirmance of the decision of the local land office in favor of such claimant;28 or the right of occupancy of realty, the title to which is in an Indian nation,29 are considerations. A promise by one who is in wrongful possession of a damaged building after buying the damaged stock, that he will vacate the premises in eight days and remove all rubbish, has sufficient consideration in the promise of the owner of the building not to take steps to secure possession of such building for eight days.30 So entering on the land of another and erecting buildings,'31 or other improvements,32 or doing work thereon,33 as working a mine and paying royalties,34 or even merely occupying it,35 are valuable considerations. So the conveyance of an easement,36 as a right of way,37 a party wall,38 or mutual promises to drill no oil wells within

Iowa. Kinkead v. Peet, 136 Ia. 500, 111 N. W. 48.

Kentucky. Ward v. Crotty, 61 Ky. (4 Met.) 59.

Massachusetts. Nichols v. Nichols,

136 Mass. 256; Fitcher v. Griffiths, 216 Mass. 174, 103 N. E. 471.

Michigan. Farwell v. Johnston, 34 Mich. 342. Minnesota. Baxter v. Brandenburg,

137 Minn. 259, 163 N. W. 516. Virginia. Ficklin v. Rixey, 89 Va.

832, 37 Am. St. Rep. 891, 17 S. E. 325.

West Virginia. Beverlin v. Casto, 62 W. Va. .158, 57 S. E. 411.

But in some jurisdictions inchoate dower, Miller v. Miller, 104 Ia. 186, 73 N. W. 484; Le Saulnier v. Krueger, 85 Wis. 214, 54 N. W. 774, or unas-signed dower, Ritt v. Dodge, 20 R. I. 133, 37 Atl. 810, can not be sold or contracted for.

12Racek v. Bank, 62 Neb. 669, 87 N. W. 542; Fiedler v. Howard, 99 Wis. 388, 67 Am. St. Rep. 865, 75 N. W. 163.

13 Oriel v. Lomax, 89 Ala. 420, 6 So. 741.

14 Weston v. Hight, 18 Me. 281.

15 Trull v. Eastman, 44 Mass. (3 Met.) 121, 37 Am. Dec. 126.

16 Hart v. Gregg, 32 O. S. 502.

17 Miner v. O'Harrow, 60 Mich. 91, 26 N. W. 843; Lamprey v. Ry., 89 Minn. 187, 94 N. W. 555; Whitebeck v. White-beck, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 266, 18 Am. Dec. 503. But a conveyance which bars a husband's rights in his wife's property, though informal, leaves no interest to serve as a consideration. Long v. Rankin, 108 N. Car. 333, 12 S. E. 987.

18 Shade v. Creviston, 93 Ind. 591; Storms v. Storms, 21 Ind. App. 191, 51 N. E. 955; Lane v. Flint, 217 Mass. 96, 104 N. E. 570; Gunnell v. Emerson, 80 Mo. App. 322.

19Bickell v. Wessinger, 58 Or. 98, 113 Pac. 34.

20Chytraus v. Smith, 141 111. 231, 30 N. E. 450.

21 Lennox v. Brower, 160 Pa. St. 191, 28 Atl. 839.

22 Reed v. Crane, 89 Mo. App. 670.

23 Clinch River Veneer Co. v. Kurth, 90 Va. 737, 19 S. E. 878.

24 Peoples v. Evens, 8 N. D. 121, 77 N. W. 93 [citing Linderamith v. Schwiso, 17 Minn. 26].

25Hardesty v. Service, 45 Kan. 614 [sub nomine, Pelham v. Service, 26 Pac. 29].

See also Waring v. Loom is, 35 Wash. 85, 76 Pac. 510.

26Dohr v. Wolfgang, 151 Wis. 95, 138 N. W. 75.

27McKinnon v. Palen, 62 Minn. 188, 64 N. W. 387.

28Tecumseh State Bank v. Maddox, 4 Okla. 583, 46 Pac. 563.

29Tye v. Town Co.,.2 Ind. Ter. 113, 48 S. W. 1021.

30Heineman v. Gans, 142 Mich. 289, 105 N. W. 763. (This is not affected by the fact that the release of the lessees to the owner was to give possession to the contractor to repair such building from and after ten days, which ten-day period expired two days before the eight-day period.)

31 Burlingame v. Rowland, 7T Cal. 315, 1 L. R. A. 829, 19 Pac. 526; Puter-baugh v. Puterbaugh, 131 Ind. 288, 15 L. R. A. 341, 30 N. E. 519.

32Gilpin v. Adams, 14 Colo. 512, 24 Pac. 566 (ditch, fences, repairs and taxes); Woodworth v. Thompson, 44 Neb. 311, 62 N. W. 450.

33Wysor Land Co. v. Jones, 24 Ind. App. 451, 56 N. E. 46.

34United Mines Co. v. Hatcher, 79 Fed. 517 [partly affirming and partly reversing, 75 Fed. 3681; Clarno v. Gray-son, 30 Or. Ill, 46 Pac. 426.

35 Remaining on property which lessee was not required by the lease to use or occupy is a consideration for a promise by lessor to reduce the rent. Ten Eyck v. Sleeper, 65. Minn. 413, 67 N. W. 1026.

Contra, entering on land without making valuable improvements is no consideration for a promise by a father to make a gift to his son. Geer v. Goudy, 174 111. 514, 51 N. E. 623.

36Barr v. Lamaster, 48 Neb. 114, 32 L. R. A. 451, 66 N. W. 1110; Post v. Ry. Co., 123 N. Y. 580, 26 N. E. 7.

37 United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 207 Fed. 164. (Consideration for a promise by the grantee to protect the forest along the railway.) Fish v. Dunn, 59 Minn. 99, 60 N. W. 843; Post v. Ry. Co., 123 N. Y. 580, 26 N. E. 7; Shields v. Titus, 46 O. S. 528, 22 N. E. 717.

38Grimely v. Davidson, 133 111. 116, 24 N. E. 439. (Even if located entirely on the land of one party.) two hundred feet of the boundary of the lands of the two contracting parties,39 or mutual promises to leave adjoining strips of land for light,40 or conveyance of a franchise, as to operate a street rail-way,41 are all valuable considerations. A license may be a valuable consideration. A grant of the right to remove gravel by A to B, is a consideration for a covenant by B not to excavate so close to A's line as to cause an adjoining cemetery to cave in.42

The conveyance may be reciprocal. So an oral partition,43 or other amicable partition,44 or an exchange of realty,45 is a consideration. Such a transfer of realty is a consideration for a promise to reconvey,46 or to repay any surplus remaining after paying debts or expenses out of the property.47