A transfer of personal property or any interest therein is a sufficient consideration,1 even though such property is sold subject to mortgage.2 The transfer of stock in a corporation;3 or corporate bonds;4 or good will;5 or an interest in a partnership;6 or an assignment of a judgment;7 or a note;8 or a deposit of money in a bank;9 or of bank checks signed by a third person;10 or assent of an insurance company to an assignment of a policy;11 or a sale of rights in an unperfected invention,12 are all valuable considerations. The transfer by a debtor to a creditor of property already pledged to such creditor is a consideration for a release of the debt by payment of a part thereof.13 So is a payment of money to which the payee was not already entitled,14 such as a loan,15 as one made by a wife to a

39Ware v. Langmadg, 9 Ohio C. G. 85.

40 Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 124 . Pac. 998.

41 City Railway Co. v. Ry. Co., 166 U. S. 557, 41 L. ed. 1114; People v. Ry. Co., 178 111. 594, 49 L. R. A. 650, 53 N. E. 349; Western, etc, Co. v. Ry. Co., 128 Ind. 540, 26 N. E. 188, 28 N. E. 88; Cincinnati v. Ry. Co., 2 Ohio Dec. 468. Unless the council which attempts to grant the franchise has no power to grant the same. Amestoy v. Transit Co., 95 Cal. 311, 30 Pac. 550.

42Orr v. Dayton & Muncie Traction Co., 178 Ind. 40, 96 N. E. 462.

43 Borden v. Curtis, 46 N. J. Eq. 468, 19 Atl. 127. (Consideration for surrender of a lease on part of the property.)

44 Badger v. Stephens, 61 Mo. App. 387; Stephens v. Stephens, 60 Tenn. (1 Baxt.) 52.

45 Clark v. Belt, 223 Fed. 573, 138 C. C. A. 1; Hart v. Strong, 183 111. 349, 55 N. E. 629 [reversing 83 111. App. 213].

46 Wilson v. Fairchild, 45 Minn. 203, 47 N. W. 642.

47 Adams v. Lombard, 80 Gal. 426,

22 Pac. 180; Visalia, etc., Co. v. Sims, 104 Cal. 326, 37 Pac. 1042; Linscott v. Mclntire, 15 Me. 201, 33 Am. Dec. 602.

1 Alabama. McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451, 54 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 So. 806.

Colorado. Lemmon v. Sibert, 15 Colo. App. 131, 61 Pac. 202.

Illinois. Hallman v. Schwartz, 44 III. App. 84.

Iowa. Phillips v. Gifford, 104 la. 458, 73 N. W. 1033.

Massachusetts. Gunther v. Gunther, 181 Mass. 217, 63 N. E. 402.

Michigan. Richmond v. Nye, 126 Mich. 602, 85 N. W. 1120.

Mississippi. De Marco v. Williams (Miss.), 12 So. 552.

North Dakota. Lumber Co. v. Tour-telot, 7 N. D. 587, 75 N. W. 901.

Oregon. Davidson v. Madden, 89 Or. 209, 173 Pac. 320.

Tennessee. Maloney v. Moore (Tenn. Ch. App.), 42 S. W. 805.

2 Gunnell v. Emerson, 73 Mo. App. 291; Provenchee v. Piper, 68 N. H. 31, 36 Atl. 552; Lessel v. Zilmer, 105 Wis. 334, 81 N. W. 403 (as for a promise to pay part of the mortgage).

3 California. Sayward v. Houghton, 110 Cal. 545, 51 Pac. 853 [rehearing refused, 52 Pac. 44].

Indiana. Knarr v. Turnpike Co., 45 Ind. 278.

Michigan. Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296, 66 Am. St. Rep. 480, 72 N. W. 157.

Minnesota. Wyatt v. Jackson, 55 Minn. 87, 56 N. W. 578; Atwater v. Stromberg, 75 Minn. 277, 77 N. W. 963.

South Dakota. Gardner v. Haines, 19 S. D. 514, 104 N. W. 244.

Consideration for a promise to re-convey. Sayward v. Houghton, 119 Cal. 545, 51 Pac. 853 [rehearing refused, 52 Pac. 44].

Consideration for a promise not to compete in business. Up River Ice Co. v. Denier, 114 Mich. 296, 66 Am. St. Rep. 480, 72 N. W. 157.

Consideration for a promise to pay judgments and attorney's fees due from the vendor. Sutton v. Dudley, 193 Pa. St. 194, 44 Atl. 438.

4 Erie City Iron Works v. Thomas, 139 Fed. 995.

5 McCurry v. Gibson, 108 Ala. 451, 64 Am. St. Rep. 177, 18 So. 806; Smock v. Pierson, 68 Ind. 405, 34 Am. Rep. 269; Davis v. Garrison, 85 la. 447, 52 N. W. 359; Phillips v. Gifford, 104 la. 458, 73 N. W. 1033.

6 DaVidson v. Madden, 89 Or. 209, 173 Pac. 320.

7 Cox v. Robinson, 70 Fed. 760; Dick-erson v. Derrickson, 39 111. 574; State National Bank v. Walser, 46 Mo. 348.

8 Farber v. Iron Co., 140 Ind. 54, 39

N. E. 249; Dockray v. Dunn, 37 Me. 442; Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418.

9 Deal v. Bank, 79 Mo. App. 262; Pollock v. Loan Association, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683, 29 S. E. 77; Farabee-Treadwell Co. v. Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co., 135 Tenn. 208, L. R. A. 1916F, 501, 186 S. W. 92.

10 Deal v. Bank, 79 Mo. App. 262.

11 Equitable Marine Ins. Co. v. Adams, 173 Mass. 436, 53 N. E. 883; Hughson v. Hardy, 62 Minn. 209, 64 N. W. 389. (A consideration for the promise of assignee to pay premiums thereon.).

12 Watson v. Deeds, 3 Ind. App. 75, 29 N. E. 151.

13 Herman v. Schlesinger, 114 Wis. 382, 91 Am. St. Rep. 922, 90 N. W. 460.

14Dunn v. Abrams, 97 Ga. 762, 25 S. E. 766; McHenry v. Brown, 66 Minn. 123, 68 N. W. 847; Black v. Oliva, 80 Minn. 396, 83 N. W. 386; Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29, 59 Am. St. Rep. 489, 38 S. W. 712 [reversing, 35 S. W. 1138, on rehearing].

A payment to the surety on the bond of a defaulting contract of the unpaid price due under the contract is a consideration for his promise to complete the building and discharge liens to the extent of his obligation on the bond and the money paid to him. McHenry v. Brown, 66 Minn. 123, 68 N. W. 847.

A payment of partnership funds to one partner is consideration for his promise to pay a firm note. Black v. Oliva, 80 Minn. 396, 83 N. W. 386.

15 Massachusetts. Phelps v. Lowell husband,16 or a payment by mistake of fact.17 The payment of the premium of an insurance policy by an agent is consideration for a note therefor given to the agent by the insured,18 and such note can be enforced, even if the insurance company is then insolvent, and the policy is practically worthless.19 A's waiver of his right in a chattel under a contract with B is consideration for C's promise to give to A an option on the same chattel which C is about to buy from B.20 So change of possession of personal property is a consideration;21 as for a promise to pay a third person;22 as to pay debts of the person delivering the property;23or to accept an order drawn by the party delivering the goods,24 or to insure such property,25 or to care for it, as where a consignee of coal barges agrees to protect them from the ice.26 A transfer of a special property right in personalty, as the transfer by a sheriff of his special property in personalty on which he has levied an execution,27 is a sufficient consideration. Transfer of possession in bailment is consideration for a promise made by the bailee.28 So a loan of a painting a Pierce v. Walton, 20 Ind. App. 66, 50 N. E. 309.

Institution, 198 Mass. 179, 83 N. E. 989.

Missouri. Loewen v. Forsee, 137 Mo. 29, 59 Am. St. Rep. 489, 38 S. W. 712 [reversing, 35 S. W. 1138].

New Jersey. Cole v. Lee, 45 N. J. Eq. 779, 18 Atl. 854.

South Carolina. Norwood v. Faulkner, 22 S. Car. 367, 53 Am. Rep. 717.

Vermont. Bruce v. Hastings, 41 Vt. 380, 98 Am. Dec. 592.

16Muir v. Miller, 103 la. 127, 72 N. W. 409.

17DeVoin v. DeVoin, 76 Wis. 66, 44 N. W. 839.

18 Dunn v. Abrams, 97 Ga. 762, 25 S. E. 766. (Even where the policy was not to go into effect till the premium was paid and the application which was a part thereof mistakenly recited that the premium was unpaid.)

19 Hudson v. Compere, 94 Tex. 449, 61 S. W. 389.

20Strother v. Miller (Ky.), 124 S. W. 358.

21Hellmao v. Schwartz, 44 111. App. 84. (A promise by a creditor to release one partner if firm goods were surrendered to the other.) State v.*

McDuffle, 34 N. H. 523, 69 Am. Dec. 516; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316, 62 Am. Dec. 574.

22 Keyes v. Allen, 65 Vt. 667, 27 Atl. 319.

23 Clark y. Chapman, 98 Cal. 110, 32 Pac. 812, 33 Pac. 750. (A promise to indemnify A against claims, settled by arbitration on his delivering certain property to arbitrators.) Runkle v. Kettering, 127 la. 6, 102 N. W. 142; Drye v. Cunningham (Ky.), 74 S. W. 272; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts. (Pa.) 104, 26 Am. Dec. 107. (A promise by assignee to pay creditors of assignor.)

24H.G. Olds Wagon Works v. Coombs, 124 Ind. 62, 24 N. E. 589.

25Keller v. Smith, 59 Minn. 203, 60 N. W. 1102.

27 Lamb v. Zundell, 78 Vt. 232, 62 Atl. 33.

28 United States. Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312, 38 L. ed. 1093.

Alabama. Prince v. State Fair, 106 Ala. 340, 28 L. R. A. 716, 17 So. 449.

Indiana. Miller v. Upton, 6 Ind. 53.

for competitive exhibition at a fair is a consideration for a promise to redeliver it.29 The consent of a lessee, A, that a former lessee, B, may retain possession of the leased machine until B has completed a certain amount of work, is consideration for a promise by B to furnish another machine to A.30