Forbearance to bring an action upon a claim which is asserted in good faith is sufficient consideration for a promise to induce such forbearance.1

Forbearance to bring a proceeding in bastardy or an agreement not to bring such proceeding, is sufficient consideration for a promise to induce such forbearance.2 Such forbearance or waiver is consideration where the action has been begun,3 as well as where the action has not been begun,4 or where the action has not even been threatened.5 The only difficulty in holding such forbearance or waiver to be a consideration is that such promise is not a bar to an action by the public,6 and, accordingly, it may be urged that the promisor receives nothing in return for his promise, since he is contracting for immunity from further liability and not merely for speaking or writing words which make such promise. A contract by which the putative father of a bastard child agrees with its mother to pay a certain sum of money for its support in consideration of her promise not to institute proceedings against him, is not a bar to the jurisdiction of the court in a proceeding in bastardy;7 but the court has jurisdiction to consider the amount paid in under such contract in fixing the amount in which the putative father is to be held liable.8 Such a promise is, however, a bar to a subsequent action by the mother of the bastard child or on her behalf;9 and for this reason such promise is a consideration for the promise which it is sought to enforce. Such waiver or forbearance is consideration for the promise of the putative father to pay a certain sum of money to the mother for the future support of the bastard child.10

1 Delaware. Corletto v. Morgan, 27 Del. 530, 89 Atl. 738.

Idaho. Heath v. Potlatch Lumber Co., 18 Ida. 42, 108 Pac. 343.

Illinois. Wickham v. Hyde Park, etc., Association, 80 III. App.523.

Indiana. Johnson v. Staley, 32 Ind. App. 628, 70 N. E. 541.

Massachusetts. Attorney General v. Supreme Council American Legion of Honor, 206 Mass. 193, 92 N. E. 151.

Michigan. Mosher v. Lumber Co., 112 Mich. 517, 71 N. W. 161.

Minnesota. Minneapolis Land Co. v. McMillan, 79 Minn. 287, 82 N. W. 591.

Missouri. Hills v. Ry. Co., 82 Mo. App. 188.

Nebraska. Matthews v. Seaver, 34 Neb. 592, 52 N. W. 283; Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 441, 128 N. W. 527.

Ohio. Manahan v. Smith, 19 O. S. 384; Holzworth v. Koch, 26 O. S. 33; Brownell v. Harsh, 29 O. S. 631.

Oklahoma. Hays v. Smith, - Okla. - , 164 Pac. 470.

West Virginia. Bolyard v. Bolyard,

79 W. Va. 554, L. R. A. 1917D, 440, 91 S. E. 529.

Forbearance to sue must not, of course, be illegal. See Sec. 657 et seq. See, Forbearance to Sue, by Edmund H. Bennett, 10 Harvard Law Review, 113.

2 Davis v. Harrington, 53 Ark. 5, 13 S. W. 215; Van Epps v. Redfield, 68 Conn. 39, 34 L. R. A. 360, 35 Atl. 809. But a promise by the father to support the child has no consideration where no right against him is waived. Mercer v. Mercer, 87 Ky. 30, 7 S. W. 401.

3Merritt v. Flemming, 42 Ala. 234; Jones v. Peterson, 117 Ga. 58, 43 S. E. 417; Griffin v. Chriswisser, 84 Neb. 196, 120 N. W. 909; Billingsley v. Clel-land, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 S. E. 812.

4 Burton v. Belvin, 142 N. Car. 151, 55 S. E. 71.

5 Van Epps v. Redfield, 68 Conn. 39, 34 L. R. A. 360, 35 Atl. 809.

6 Commonwealth v. Turner, 34 Ky. (4 Dana) 511; State v. Dougher, 47 Minn. 436, 50 N. W. 475; Humphrey v. Kasson, 26 Vt. 760.

The act of one who has grounds for a suit for divorce, in giving up his right to bring such suit;11 or a delay in bringing such suit;12 or to sue for personal injuries;13 or to sue on a bond;14 or on a note;15 or to sue in ejectment;16 or to enforce a lien;17 or the withdrawal of a claim on a fund held by the government,18 are considerations. Thus if circumstances exist, under which a wife has a claim against her husband for alimony, her forbearance to sue therefor is a valuable consideration.19 Waiver of a right to sue for a violation of the provisions of a decree for alimony is a consideration.20 Such contracts are not favorites of the law. If the separation is voluntary, the wife has no claim for alimony, and her forbearance to sue is no consideration.21 If a wife has instituted criminal proceedings against her husband for non-support, her dismissal of such proceedings, together with his duty to support the family, amount to sufficient consideration for a bond executed by the husband by a surety, even if such bond is invalid as against the husband,22 on the ground that it is a contract between husband and wife.23 If cohabitation continues, a promise by a wife to live harmoniously, manage the house properly, and the like, is a promise to do "just what is demanded by her marital relations," and, therefore, no consideration.24

7Follit v. Koetzow, 2 E. & E. 730, 121 Reprint 274.

8Follit v. Koetzow, 2 E. & E. 730, 121 Reprint 274.

9State exrel. v. Meier, 140 la. 540, 118 N. W. 792; Ingwaldson v. Skriv-seth, 7 N. D. 388, 75 N. W. 772; State exrel. v. Pickering, 29 S. D. 207, 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 144, 136 N. W. 106.

10 Hook v. Pratt, 78 N. Y. 371, 34 Am. Rep. 539. (The mother also furnished support to the child.)

11 Kentucky. Moayon v. Moayon, 114 Ky. 855, 102 Am. St. Rep. 303, 60 L. R. A. 415, 72 S. W. 33.

Massachusetts. Poison v. Stewart, 167 Mass. 211, 57 Am. St. Rep. 452, 36 L. R. A. 771, 45 N. E. 737.

Nebraska. Mack v. Mack, 87 Neb. 819, 31 L. R. A. (N.S.) 441, 128 N. W. 527.

New York. Adams v. Adams, 91 N. Y. 381, 43 Am. Rep. 675.

Rhode Island. Darcey v. Darcey, 29 R. I. 384, 71 Atl. 595.

Contra, such consideration is not valid as against the creditors of the husband. Oppenheimer v. Collins, 115 Wis. 283, 60 L. R. A. 406, 91 N. W. 690.

12 Stein v. Blake, 56 111. App. 525.

13 Sax v. Ry., 125 Mich. 252, 84 Am. St. Rep. 572, 84 N. W. 314.

14Howard v. Lawrence (Ky.), 63 S. W. 589; Fink v. Bank, 178 Pa. St. 164, 56 Am. St. Rep. 746, 35 Atl. 636.

15Pollak v. Billing, 131 Ala. 519, 32 So. 639; Colver v. Wheeler, 11 Ohio C. C. 604.

16 Bochterle v. Saunders, 36 R. I. 39, 88 Atl. 803.

17 Cornell v. Electric Co., 61 111. App. 325; Rollins v. Hare, 15 Ind. App. 677, 44 N. E. 374; Sharp v. Carmody (Ky.), 32 S. W. 749; Hillenbrand v. Shippen (Ky.),58 S. W. 525.

18 Barber v. Coburn, 165 Mass. 323, 43 N. E. 95.

19 Droop v. Ridenour, 11 D. C. App. 224; Roll v. Roll, 51 Minn. 353, 53 N. W. 716; Pettit v. Pettit, 107 N. Y. 677, 14 N. E. 500; Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N. Y. 633, 15 Am. St. Rep. 463, 22 N. E. 1114; Henderson v. Henderson, 37 Or. 141, 82 Am. St. Rep. 741, 48 L. R. A. 766, 60 Pac. 597, 61 Pac. 136. Whether such promise is legal, see Sec. 947.

Forbearance to sue is consideration for a promise not to plead limitations;25 or for a promise by a third person to pay such debt;26 or for a promise to pay the creditor "well" for waiting till the death of the debtor.27 Forbearance to bring an action on a debt owing by a corporation is consideration for a contract made by the corporation and its officers, to give a note for such debt.28

20 Lancaster v. Elliott, 55 Mo. App. 240.

21 Scherer v. Scherer, 23 Ind. App. 384, 77 Am. St. Rep. 437, 55 N. E. 494.

22 Bolyard v. Bolyard, 79 W. Va. 554, L. R. A. 1917D, 440, 91 S. E. 529.

23 See ch. LII.

24 Miller v. Miller, 78 la. 177, 16 Am. St. Rep. 431, 35 N. W. 464, 42 N. W. 641.

25 Wells v. Enright, 127 Cal. 669, 49 L. R. A. 647, 60 Pac. 439; Bridges v. Stephens, 132 Mo. 524, 34 S. W. 555.

26 England. Barnehurst v. Cabbot, 1 Hardres 5.

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

Connecticut. Mascolo v. Montesanto, 61 Conn. 50, 29 Am. St. Rep. 170, 23 Atl. 714.

Indiana. Coffin v. Asbury University, 92 Ind. 337.

Kentucky. Lemaster v. Burkhart, 5 Ky. (2 Bibb.) 25; Miller v. Davis, 168 Ky. 661, 182 S. W. 839.

Massachusetts. Howe v. Taggart,

133 Mass. 284; Barber v. Coburn, 165 Mass. 323, 43 N. E. 95.

Michigan. Mosher v. Lumber Co., 112 Mich. 517, 521, 71 N. W. 161; Union Banking Co. v. Martin, 113 Mich. 521, 71 N. W. 867; Harris v. Gates, 121 Mich. 163, 79 N. W. 1098.

New Hampshire. Bartlett v. Wood-worth-Mason Co., 69 N. H. 316, 41 Atl. 264.

New York. Traders' National Bank v. Parker, 130 N. Y. 415, 29 N. E. 1094.

Ohio. Holzworth v. Koch, 26 O. S. 33; Brownell v. Harsh, 29 O. S. 631.

Pennsylvania. Bailey v. Marshall, 174 Pa. St. 602, 34 Atl. 326; Brown v. McCreight, 187 Pa. St. 18a, 41 Atl. 45.

Tennessee. Allen v. Morgan, 24 Tenn. (5 Humph.) 624.

27 Davis v. Teachout, 126 Mich. 135, 86 Am. St. Rep. 531, 85 N. W. 475. (Hence limitation does not run till the death of the debtor.)

28 Illinois Roofing & Supply Co. v. Aerial Advertising Co., 142 Mich. 698 [sub nomine, Illinois Roofing & Supply Co. v. Cribbs, 106 N. W. 274].

The forbearance of the state,29 to close a bank which is operating with insufficient assets, is sufficient consideration for a note which is given to make good such deficiency.