The necessary consideration to render a subscription enforceable is usually found in the assumption by the promisee of new liabilities in reliance upon the promise, such liabilities being of a kind contemplated by the offer.1 Examples of such liabilities are: expending money in continuing an institution of learning,2 erection of a library building,3 a hospital,4 a church edifice;5 maintaining a missionary in a certain field,6 a railroad,7 or a shoe factory;8 construction of a bridge by a town,9 locating a college,10 a railroad,11 a postoffice,12 a manufacturing plant,13 or a stock exchange;14 making a survey;15 holding ah election;16 raising money by taxation to meet the terms of the subscription;17 giving a ball; 18assumption of certain debts by the trustees individually;19 the promise of a parish not to increase its current expenses during a certain period,20 and advances made by the trustees,21 if in accordance with the terms of the re-

4 Sullivan v. Corbett, 3 Kan. App. 390, 42 Pac. 1105.

5Augustin v. M. E. Society, 72 111. App. 432; American Life Ins. Co. v. Melcher, 132 la. 324, 109 N. W. 805; Solomon v. Penoyar, 89 Mich. 11, 50 N. W. 644; Helfensteins' Estate, 77 Pa. St. 328, 18 Am. Rep. 449.

6 Pratt v. Society, 93 111. 475, 34 Am. Rep. 187; First Presbyterian Church v. Cooper, 112 N. Y. 517, 8 Am. St. Rep. 767, 3 L. R. A. 468, 20 N. E. 352; Twenty-third Street Baptist Church v. Cornell, 117 N. Y. 601, 6 L. R. A. 807, 23 N. E. 177; Phipps V. Jones, 20 Pa. St. 260, 59 Am. Dec. 708.

7 Beach v. Church, 96 111. 177.

1 Arkansas. Rogers v. College, 64 Ark. 627, 39 L. R. A. 636, 44 S. W. 454.

California. Lasar v. Johnston, 125 Cal. 549, 58 Pac. 161.

Georgia. Owenby v. Georgia Baptist Assembly, 137 Ga. 698, 74 S. E. 56; Young Men's Christian Association v. Estill, 140 Ga. 291, 78 S.E. 1075.

Illinois. Trustees of Methodist Church v. Garvey, 53 III. 401, 5 Am. Rep. 51; Whitsitt v. Church, 110 111. 125; Richelieu Hotel Co. v. Encampment Co., 140 111. 248, 33 Am. St. Rep. 234, 29 N. E. 1044 [affirming 41 111. App. 268]; Kinsley v. Encampment Co., 41 111. App. 259.

Iowa. University v. Livingston, 57 la. 307, 42 Am. Rep. 42, 10 N. W. 738; McCabe v. O'Connor, 69 la. 134, 28 N.

W. 573; Brokaw v. McElroy, 162 la. 288, 143 N. W. 1087.

Kansas. White v. Scott, 26 Kan. 476.

Maine. Haskell v. Oak, 75 Me. 510.

Massachusetts. Sherwin v. Fletcher, 168 Mass. 413, 47 N. E. 197.

Mississippi. Chicago, etc., Co., v. Higginbotham (Miss.), 29 So. 79.

Minnesota. Albert Lea College v. Brown, 88 Minn. 524, 60 L. R. A. 870, 93 N. W. 672.

Missouri. Kansas City School District v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576, 37 L. R. A. 406, 40 S. W. 656; James v. Clough, 25 Mo. App. 147; Swain v. Hill, 30 Mo. App. 436.

Nebraska. Fremont Bridge Co. v. Fuhrman, 8 Neb. 99; Homan v. Steele, 18 Neb. 652, 26 N. W. 472.

New Hampshire. Osborn v. Crosby, 63 N. H. 583, 3 Atl. 429.

New Mexico. Miller v. Preston, 4 N. M. 396, 17 Pac. 565.

Ohio. Ohio, etc., College v. Love, 16 O. S. 20.

Texas. Cooper v. McCrimmin, 33 Tex. 383, 7 Am. Rep. 268.

Vermont. Grand Isle v. Kinney, 70 Vt. 381, 41 Atl. 130.

Virginia. Catt v. Olivier, 98 Va. 580, 36 S. E. 980.

West Virginia. National Valley Bank v. Houston, 66 W. Va. 336, 66 S. E. 465.

Wisconsin. Gibbons v. Grinsel, 79 Wis. 365, 48 N. W. 255.

2 Burlington University v. Barrett, 22 la. 60, 92 Am. Dec. 376; Commissioners Canal Fund v. Perry, 5 Ohio 56; Ohio, etc., College v. Love, 16 0. S. 20;Irwin v. Lombard University, 56 0. S. 9, 60 Am. St. Rep. 727, 36 L. R. A. 239, 46 N. E. 63; Irwin v. Webster, 7 Ohio C. C. 269.

3 Kansas City School District v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576, 37 L. R. A. 406, 40 S. W. 656.

4 Cottage Hospital v. Merrill, 92 la. 649, 61 N. W. 490.

5 Howell v. Church, 61 111. App. 121; Evangelish Lutherish St. Martin's Gemeinde v. Pruess, 140 Wis. 349, 122 N. W. 719.

6 Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions v. Smith, 209 Pa. St. 361, 58 Atl. 689.

7 Judson v. Gage, 91 Cal. 304, 27 Pac. 676; Cook v. McNaughton, 128 Ind. 410, 24 N. E. 361, 28 N. E. 74; Ward v. Missouri, Kansas & Oklahoma Ry. Co., - Okla. - , 157 Pac. 775.

8Sherwin v. Fletcher, 168 Mass. 413, 47 N. E. 197; Davis, etc., Co. v. Caigle (Tenn. Ch. App.), 53 S. W. 240.

9 Grand Isle v. Kinney, 70 Vt. 381, 41 Atl. 130.

10 Rogers v. College, 64 Ark. 627, 39 L. R. A. 636, 44 S. W. 454; Schuler v. Myton, 48 Kan. 282, 29 Pac. 163; Keuka College v. Ray, 167 N. Y. 96, 60 N. E. 325.

11 Leaner v. Karshner, 47 O. S. 302,

24 N. E. 882. The location of a railroad is consideration for a promise to donate land for right of way, depot and termini. Dewey v. Spring Valley Land Co., 98 Wis. 83, 73 N. W. 566. 12Fearnley v. De Mainville, 5 Colo. App. 441, 39 Pac. 73.

13 Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50, 31 S. E. 438; Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 45 Minn. 164, 47 N. W. 652.

14 Merchants' Building Improvement Co. v. Chicago Exchange Building Co., 210 111. 26, 71 N. E. 22.

15 National Valley Bank v. Houston, 66 W. Va. 336, 66 S. E. 465.

16The expense of holding election and issuing of bonds voted thereat is consideration for a note given to the school district. Kansas City School District v. Sheidley, 138 Mo. 672, 60 Am. St. Rep. 576, 37 L. R. A. 406, 40 S. W. 656.

17 La Fayette Co. Monument Association v. Magoon, 73 Wis. 627, 3 L. R. A. 761, 42 N. W. 17.

18 Laser v. Johnston, 125 Cal. 549, 58 Pac. 161.

19 United Presbyterian Church v. Baird, 60 la. 237, 14 N. W. 303; First M. E. Church v. Donnell, 110 la. 5, 46 L. R. A. 858, 81 N. W. 171.

20 Robinson v. Nutt, 185 Mass. 345, 70 N. E. 198.

21 Board of Trustees v. Saunders, 84 Wis. 570, 54 N. W. 1094.

spective subscriptions and in reliance upon them. Acceptance of a written subscription which on its face shows that it is to be used "in foreign missionary work," refraining from soliciting other subscriptions and employing missionaries, have been held to be sufficient consideration.22 A subscription made to a church on consideration of its raising a certain amount within a year for certain purposes can not be accepted by a vote to apply enough of a legacy which had been given to such church to make up the balance of such amount, whenever such legacy should become available, since such legacy might not become available, and the church had not incurred any liability by such vote.23

To amount either to acceptance or to consideration, the obligation which is incurred must be one which is fairly contemplated by the terms of the subscription.24 The expense of paying commissions for securing subscriptions is not a consideration sufficient to support the subscriptions thus secured.25

Past considerations do not make a subscription enforceable. Thus the work of a pastor of a church in obtaining subscriptions is no consideration for subscriptions already made.26 So a "promise made by a subscriber to enable a college to pay its pre-existing debts lacks consideration.27 If A subscribes to raise a fund to pay an existing indebtedness of a church, it is said that the act of the trustees in borrowing money in reliance on such subscription to pay such indebtedness is a consideration.28 The correctness of this decision may be doubted, since it does not appear from the terms of A's subscription that A intended the trustees to borrow money in reliance upon his subscription; and a consideration which is not contemplated by the offer, should not turn a gratuitous promise into an enforceable contract.29