A waiver of exemptions;1 the waiver by an indorser of his right to demand and notice;2 a waiver of a right to declare dividends and an agreement to apply the surplus to making certain improvements;3 the delivery for record of a deed, delivery of which might have been withheld lawfully;4 and destroying an unrecorded assignment of a patent to revest the title in the assignor,5 are valuable considerations. So A's promise to B, his broker, not to close his sales of stock to avoid loss, is a consideration for B's promise to carry the stock without further margin.6 It has been held that the agreement of attorneys to permit a third person to compromise directly with their clients is a consideration.7 What legal right was here given up by the promisee or acquired by the promisor is not made clear in the opinion; unless the attorneys had a legal right to prevent third persons from attempting to induce their clients to compromise and to dismiss a pending case, no consideration appears. If the attorney was induced, by the promise of the third person, that he would pay the fees of such attorney, to refrain from giving to his client his best advice and thus to permit the action to be settled, the contract would be contrary to public policy. The promise by A, who is an attorney at law, to refrain from taking cases against B, is a consideration for B's promise to pay therefor.8 A contract whereby a judgment creditor agrees not to enforce his judgment against the entire interest of the judgment debtor, and by which the adversary party promises to refrain from bidding, is supported by a sufficient consideration if otherwise valid.9 A promise whereby A, who operates a theater, agrees to place B's advertisement upon the show-curtain, is a sufficient consideration for B's promise to pay therefor.10

9Heinz v. National Bank, 237 Fed. 942, 150 C. C. A. 592.

10 Moorman v. Plummer Lumber Co., 113 La. 429, 37 So. 17.

11Heitsch v. Cole, 4T Minn. 320, 60 N. W. 235.

12Robinson v. Boyd, 60 O. S. 57, 53 N. E. 494; Pollock v. Loan Association, 51 S. Car. 420, 64 Am. St. Rep. 683, 29 S. E. 77. But see Sec. 522.

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

2L'Amoreaux v. Gould, 7 N. Y. 349, 57 Am. Dec. 524.

3 Knickerbocker v. Athletic Co., 20 Ohio C. C. 655.

4 Hall v. Sears, 210 Mass. 185, 96 N. E. 141.

5 Winfrey v. Gallatin, 72 Ma App. 191.

6 Rogers v. Wiley, 131 N. Y. 527, 30 N. E. 582.

7 Van Winkle v. King, 145 Ky. 691, 141 S. W. 46.