If a person not otherwise liable assumes obligations so that they become enforceable against him personally or against his property, such assumption is consideration for a promise made therefor.1 Security for a claim, whether personal security2 or mortgage security,3 as wife's joining in a mortgage of her husband's realty4 or homestead,5 or chattel property;6 a promise to support one whom promisor is not otherwise obliged to support,7 as a promise to care for a brother,8 or a father who is financially able to support himself,9 or where the son who renders the support is an emancipated minor;l0 purchasing property in reliance on the promise of another to take a part,11 or all,12 thereof, and pay for it, or to advance a part of the purchase price;13 or agreeing to erect a building;14 or to rent a certain building;15 or to transport property at certain rates;16 or giving

26 Austin v. Cemetery Association, 96 Tex. 384, 73 S. W. 526.

27 Acme Manufacturing Go. v. Mc-Cormick, 175 N. Car. 277, L R. A. 1918F, 572, 95 S. E. 555.

28Hardison v. Reel, 154 N. Car. 273, 70 S. E. 463.

1 California. Golden State, etc, Works v. Angell, 89 Cal. 643, 27 Pac. 65.

Indiana. Farr v. Bach, 13 Ind. App. 125, 41 N. E. 393.

Massachusetts. Martin v. Melee, 179 Mass. 114, 60 N. E. 397.

Michigan. Durgin v. Smith, 115 Mich. 239, 73 N. W. 361; Beistle v. McConnell, 141 Mich. 463, 104 N. W. 729.

New York. Sands v. Crooke, 46 N. Y. 564.

Ohio. Sterling Wrench Co. v. Am-stutz, 50 O. S. 484, 34 N. E. 794.

Wisconsin. Kountz v. Gates, 76 Wis. 415, 47 N. W. 729.

2 Arkansas. Bevens v. Barnett (Ark.), 22 8. W. 160. (Indemnity promised debtor.)

California. Grigsby v. Shwarz, 82 Cal. 278, 22 Pac. 1041.

Illinois. Resseter v. Waterman, 151 111. 169, 37 N. E. 875 [reversing 45 111.

App. 155]. (A promise by payee to secure collateral so as to protect surety.)

Indiana. Selz v. Mayer, 151 Ind. 422. 51 N. E. 485.

Iowa. Gibson v. Mclntire, 110 la. 417, 81 N. W. 699. (Security to creditor.)

Kansas. Smith v. Rankin, 45 Kan. 176, 25 Pac. 586. (Indemnity to surety.)

Kentucky. Lucas v. Chamberlain, 38 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 276.

Massachusetts. Kempton v. Coffin, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 129.

Washington. Staver v. Missimer, 6 Wash. 173, 36 Am. St. Rep. 142, 32 Pac. 995. (Security to creditor.) A wishing to give his mother a present, had B deed her property. She gave B a note and mortgage for the purchase money and A gave her his note for the same amount. Her incurring such liability was a consideration for A's note. Brooks v. Owen, 112 Mo. 251, 19 S. W. 723, 20 S. W. 492. A promise to pay a lien is a consideration for the conveyance of realty. Drey v. Doyle, 99. Mo. 459, 12 S. W. 287.

3 California. Savings Bank v. As-bury, 117 Cal. 96, 48 Pac. 1081.

Indiana. Talbott v. Barber, 11 Ind. App. 1, 54 Am. St Rep. 491, 38 N. E. 487.

Kansas. Stacy v. Cook, 62 Kan. 50, 61 Pac. 399.

Michigan. Lamb v. Rathburn, 118 Mich. 666, 77 N. W. 268.

Missouri. Brooke v. Owen, 112 Ma 261, 10 S. W. 723, 20 S. W. 402.

Nebraska. Sloan v. Van Buskirk, 51 Neb. 300, 70 N. W. 048.

Pennsylvania. Columbia Ave., etc. Co. v. Lewis, 100 Pa. St. 558, 42 Atl. 1094.

Washington. Brown v. Kern, 21 Wash. 211, 57 Pac. 708. A owed B a certain amount, but had the right to set off a smaller debt owed by B to A A agreed to pay the entire debt, waiving set-off, in return for a mortgage to B to secure his debt. A's promise is supported by a consideration. Stacy v. Cook, 62 Kan. 50, 61 Pac. 300.

4 Talbott v. Barber, 11 Ind. App. 1, 54 Am. St. Rep. 401, 38 N. E. 487.

5 Sloan v. Van Buskirk, 51 Neb. 300, 70 N. W. 048.

6 The additional security as of promisee's wife to a chattel mortgage is a consideration for a promise to reduce rent. Lamb v. Rathburn, 118 Mich. 666, 77 N. W. 268 [citing, Connelly v. Devoe, 37 Conn. 570; Rollins v. Marsh, 128 Mass. 116; Lawrence v. Davey, 28 Vt. 264].

7 Illinois. Waldron v. Alexander, 133 111. 30, 24 N. E. 557.

Iowa. Schneiter v. Carman, 98 la credit to A on B's promise;17 or assuming contract obligations of a third person;18 or effecting insurance on one's life and securing the premiums by mortgage,19 are all considerations. A promise by, B to make permanent improvements, to pay taxes and to devise to A, is consideration for A's promise to convey to B.20 A promise by A, who is the sales agent of B, to maintain certain offices, is a consideration for B's promise to reimburse A for the rent thereof.21 A's promise to pay to a railway company a certain sum of money upon the construction of its railway to a certain point, is supported by sufficient consideration, although the money expended by such railway in building such road is expended for its own benefit,22 A's entering into a contract with B, whereby A agrees to make certain excavations, is consideration for C's promise to remove such dirt by rail.23 Becoming security on the note of another is consideration for a promise of indemnity,24 especially where such promise is made by one primarily liable, to induce promisee to give his note to the former's creditor.28 So incurring expenses in litigation is a consideration for a promise by interested parties to give indemnity.26 The act of a mortgagee in becoming security for costs, employing an attorney and paying the jury fee in litigation between the mortgagor and the insurance company, is a consideration for a promise by the mortgagor to pay to the mortgagee a part of the proceeds of such litigation to apply on the mortgage.27 A's promise to pay costs and to reimburse B for the amount which

276, 67 N. W. 240; Harlan v. Harlan, 102 la. 701, 72 N. W. 286.

Kentucky. Braswell v. Braswell, 100 Ky. 15, 58 S. W. 42k

Michigan. Grimm v. Taylor, 06 Mich. 5, 55 N. W. 447.

Missouri. Taylor v. Crockett, 123 Mo. 300, 27 S. W. 620.

New Jersey. Collins v. Collins, 45 N. J. Eq. 813, 18 Atl. 860.

Pennsylvania. Fritz v. Menges, 179 Pa. St. 122, 36 Atl. 213.

West Virginia. Keener v. Keener,

34 W. Va. 421, 12 S. E. 729.

8Waldron v. Alexander, 133 111. 30, 24 N. E. 557.

9Collins v. Collins, 45 N. J. Eq. 813, 18 Atl. 860; Glasgow v. Turner, 01 Tenn. 163, 18 S. W. 261.

10 Grimm v. Taylor, 06 Mich- 5, 55 N. W. 447.

11 Steele v. Steele, 75 Md. 477, 23 Atl. 959; James v. Fulorod, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am. Dec. 743.

12 Anderson v. Best, 176 Pa, St. 406,

35 Atl. 194.

13Berry v. Graddy, 58 Ky. (1 Met.) 553.

14 Brewer v. Bessinger, 25 Miss. 86. (Consideration for a conveyance of realty.)

15Johnson v. Lawrence, 88 8. Car. 496, 70 S. E. 1025.

16Bald Eagle Valley Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co., 171 Pa. St 284, 50 Am. St Rep. 807, 20 L. R. A. 423, 33 Atl. 230; Bigelow v. Ry., 104 Wis. 109, 80 N. W. 95.

17Hartzell v. Saunders, 49 Mo. 433, 8 Am. Rep. 136. (A promise to hold A's baggage till he paid his bill to B and to the promisee.)

18Ford v. Ingles Coal Co. (Ky.), 102 S. W. 332.

19Holt v. United Security Life Insurance & Trust Co., 74 N. J. L. 795, 67 Atl. 118.

20 Johnson v. Johnson, 100 Neb. 791, 168 N. W. 363.

21 Keck v. Michigan Quartz Silica Co., 158 Wis. 500, 149 N. W. 208.

22 Ward v. Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Ry. Co., - Okla. - , 157 Pac. 775.

23 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Clark, 90 Ark. 504, 119 S. W. 825.

24Hagar v. Whitmore, 82. Me. 248,

19 Atl. 444. (Indemnity to accommodation indorser.)

25 Murphey v. Bank, 57 Neb. 519, 77 N. W. 1102.

26Dendy v. Russell, 67 Kan. 721, 74 Pac. 248; Martin v. Meles, 179 Mass. 114, 60 N. B. 397; Beistle v. McCon- nell, 141 Mich. 463, 104 N. W. 729; Saudek v. Milwaukee Electric Ry. & Light Co., 163 Wis. 109, 157 N. W. 579.

But it has been held that B's promise to contribute to the expenses of a suit defended by A, which A has told B he means to resist Independently of B's action, has no consideration. Columbia Incandescent Lamp Co. v. Mfg. Co., 64 Mo. App. 115.

27 Beistle v. McConnell, 141 Mich. 463, 104 N. W. 729.

B has been obliged to pay to A under the workmen's compensation act, for X's death, is a consideration for B's assignment to A of B's claim against Y for X's death, which B has acquired by reason of such payment.28 So A's incurring expenses of a trip to Europe in reliance on B's promise to reimburse him therefor, is a consideration for B's promise.29 A's incurring expense in attending a private school in reliance on B's promise to reimburse A therefor, is consideration for such promise.30 So a railroad's agreement to support in part a relief department for its employes is consideration for a promise by the employes to release rights of action for personal injury31 at any time before acceptance.