A promise to extend for a definite time the payment of a debt due the promisor,1 or for a "reasonable time,"2 or since if no time is mentioned, a reasonable time is intended;3 a promise to extend payment for an indefinite time, if followed by delay for a reasonable time in pursuance of such promise, and in reliance thereon to the knowledge of the promisor,4 are considerations for promises made in reliance on such extension, and therefore will support a promise for additional security by others than the original debtor;5 or a new note given to evidence such debt;6 or a bond given for such purpose;7 or for a note given by the debtor as collateral security for the debt thus extended;8 or the indorsement by the debtor of a note signed by other makers as collateral security for the debt extended;9 or a promise by a third

8 Green v. Hadfield, 89 Wis. 138, 61 N. W. 310. But waiver of a void chattel mortgage is no consideration. Man-deville v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 376, 21 Am. St. Rep. 678, 26 N. E. 951.

9 Saunders v. Pope, 1 Ohio 486.

10 Smith v. Taylor, 39 Me. 242; Bart-lett v. Woodworth-Mason Co., 69 N. H. 316, 41 Atl. 264. It is a consideration for a guaranty by a third person. Smith v. Weed, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 184, 32 Am. Dec. 525. Or for a promise by other creditors to take eighty cents on the dollar. Bartlett v. Woodworth-Mason Co., 69 N. H. 316, 41 Atl. 264.

11 Rollins v. Hare, 15 Ind. App. 677, 44 N. E. 374.

12 Harness v. McKee-Brown Lumber Co., 17 Okla. 624, 89 Pac. 1020; Culver v. Ice Co., 206 Pa. St. 481, 56 Atl. 29.

13 First National Bank v. Border, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 670, 29 S. W. 659 (for a guaranty). But a promise not to attach, where no ground for attachment exists, is no consideration for a guaranty by a third person. Bates v. Sandy, 27 111. App. 552.

1 Canada. Lyons v. Donkin, 23 N. S. 258.

California. Hobson v. Haasett, 76 Cal. 203, 9 Am. St. Rep. 193, 18 Pac. 320.

Connecticut. Tuttle v. Bigelow, 1 Root (Conn.) 108, 1 Am. Dec. 35.

Illinois. Martin v. Stubbings, 126 111. 387, 9 Am. St. Rep. 620, 18 N. E. 657; Sweeney v. Kaufmann, 64 111. App. 151; Wickham v. Loan Association, 80 111. App. 523.

Iowa. Burke v. Dillin, 92 la. 557, 61 N. W. 370; Robertson v. United States Live Stock Co., 164 la. 230, 145 N. W. 535.

Kentucky. Pulliam v. Withers, 38 Ky. (8 Dana) 98, 33 Am. Dec. 479; Whitt v. Bailey (Ky.), 59 S. W. 514.

Massachusetts. Wooley v. Cobb, 105 Mass. 503, 43 N. E. 497.

Michigan. Union Trust Co. v. Zyn-da, 129 Mich. 156, 88 N. W. 407.

Minnesota. Lundberg v. Elevator Co., 42 Minn. 37, 43 N. W. 685; Peterson v. Russell, 62 Minn. 220, 54 Am. St. Rep. 634, 29 L. R. A. 612, 64 N. W. 555.

Missouri. Murdock v. Lewis, 26 Mo. App. 234.

Nebraska. Deering v. Walter, 2 Neb. (Unoff.) 361, 364, 96 N. W. 517.

Ohio. Brainard v. Harris. 14 Ohio 107; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Wallace, 45 O. S. 152, 12 N. E. 439.

Pennsylvania. Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 506, 4 Am. Dec. 477; Sid-well v. Evans, 1 Pen. & Watts (Pa.) 383, 21 Am. Dec. 387.

Texas. Walker v. Cole (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 1012.

Wisconsin. Washburn Co. v. Thompson, 99 Wis. 585, 75 N. W. 309.

2 Morgan v. Bank, 44 111. App. 562.

3 Moore v. McKenney, 83 Me. 80, 23 Am. St. Rep. 753, 21 Atl. 749; United & Globe Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Conard, 80 N. J. L. 286, 78 Atl. 203; Traders' National Bank v. Parker, 130 N. Y. 415, 29 N. E. 1094.

4 England. Barnehurst v. Cabbott,

I Hardres 5.

United States. In re All Star Feature Corporation, 232 Fed. 1004.

Colorado. Marshall v. Old, 14 Colo. App. 32, 59 Pac. 217.

Connecticut Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 Conn. 523.

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

Kentucky. Cooper v. Jackson (Ky.), 57 S. W. 254.

Maine. Moore v. McKenney, 83 Me. 80, 23 Am. St. Rep. 753, 21 Atl. 749; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Me. 551, 69 Am. St. Rep. 529, 43 Atl. 500.

Massachusetts. Howe v. Taggart, 133 Mass. 284.

Minnesota. Security National Bank v. Pulver, 131 Minn. 454, 155 N. W. 641. See also Skagit State Bank v. Moody, 86 Wash. 286, L. R. A. 1916A, 1215, 150 Pac. 425.

5 California. Scribner v. Hanke, 116 Cal. 613, 48 Pac. 714; Stroud v. Thomas, 139 Cal. 274, 96 Am. St. Rep. 111, 72 Pac. 1008.

Connecticut. Elton v. Johnson, 16 Conn. 253, 41 Am Dec. 141.

District of Columbia. Metzerott v. Wood, 10 D. C. App. 514.

Georgia. Jones v. Sikes, 85 Ga. 546,

11 S. E. 664.

Illinois. Webbe v. Stone Co., 58 111. App. 222.

Kentucky. Jackson v. Cooper (Ky.), 39 S. W. 39.

Maine. King v. Upton, 4 Me. 387, 16 Am. Dec. 266; Moore v. Kenney, 83 Me. 80, 23 Am. St. Rep. 753; Haskell v. Tukesbury, 92 Me. 551, 69 Am. St. Rep. 529, 43 Atl. 500.

Massachusetts. Robinson v. Gould, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 55; Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Mass. 297; Howe v. Taggart, 133 Mass. 284; Robertson v. Rowell, 158 Mass. 94, 35 Am. St. Rep. 466, 32 N. E. 898.

Michigan. Union Banking Co. v. Martin, 113 Mich. 521, 71 N. W. 867.

Minnesota. Nichols & S. Co. v. Ded-rick, 61 Minn. 513, 63 N. W. 1110; Peterson v. Russell, 62 Minn. 220, 54 Am. St. Rep. 634, 29 L. R. A. 612, 64 N. W. 555; Hooper v. Pike, 70 Minn. 84, 68 Am. St. Rep. 512, 72 N. W. 829; Bank v. Beecher, 133 Minn. 81, 157 N. W. 1070.

Missouri. North Atchison Bank v. Gay, 114 Mo. 203, 21 S. W. 479; Grandy v. Campbell, 78 Mo. App. 502.

Pennsylvania. Giles v. Ackles, 9 Pa. St. 147, 49 Am. Dec. 551; Saalfield v. Manrow, 165 Pa. St. 114, 30 Atl. 823.

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

6 Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 411, 57 S. W. 1062.

7 Union Trust Co. v. Zynda, 129 Mich. 156, 88 N. W. 407.

8 Red River Valley National Bank v. Barnes, 8 N. D. 432, 79 N. W. 880.

9 Mansur, etc., Co. v. Beer, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 311, 45 S. W. 972.

person to pay such debt personally.10 Agreeing to forbear a right to withdraw money from a bank without fixing any time, followed by forbearance for a reasonable time, is consideration for a third person's signing a certificate of deposit as surety to secure such indebtedness.11

If A surrenders two notes, both overdue, to B, and takes one note for the aggregate for the amount of the note, which new note is payable in the future, such extension of time is consideration for B's promise, even if one of such notes were a forgery.12 A continuance of a proceeding in garnishment so as to enable the garnishee to attend to certain business in another place, is a consideration for a promise to pay a specified sum.13

These cases rest on the theory that from the facts given it can be inferred that the parties intended delay for a reasonable time.14 If, on the other hand, such inference can not be drawn, and if the promisee did not agree, expressly or impliedly, to give an extension of time, and could have sued at any time without breaking his contract, actual extension of time is no consideration.15 On the same principle a promise to delay a "short time" has been held no consideration.16 If, however, the party agreeing to extend the time is bound by such extension even for a short time, such extension is a consideration. Thus extension of time for one day has been held a consideration.17 Extension of time on a valid note is consideration for a new note given to take up such valid note and also a forged note.18

10 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.

11 Ballard v. Burton, 64 Vt. 387, 16 L. R. A. 664, 24 Atl. 769.

12 First State Bank v. Williams, 143 la. 177, 136 Am. St. Rep. 750, 121 N. W. 702.

13Townsend v. Neuhardt, 139 Tenn. 695, 203 S. W. 255.

14 Boyd v. Frieze, 71 Mass. (5 Gray) 553; First National Bank v. Cecil, 23 Or. 58, 31 Pac. 61, 32 Pac. 393.

15 Georgia. Luden v. Enterprise Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 284, L. R. A. 1917C 485, 91 S. E. 102.

Indiana. Blumenthal v. Tibbits, 160 Ind. 70, 66 N. E. 159.

Massachusetts. Manter v. Churchill, 127 Mass. 31.

Oregon. First National Bank v. Cecil, 23 Or. 58, 31 Pac. 61, 32 Pac. 393.

Vermont. Bedford's Executor v. Chandler, 81 Vt. 270, 69 Atl. 874.

16Gates v. Hackethal, 57 111. 534, 11 Am. Rep. 45.

17Whelan v. Swain, 132 Cal. 389, 64 Pac. 560.

18 First State Bank v. Williams, 143 la. 177, 136 Am. St. Rep. 759, 121 N. W. 702.