If the promisor is willing to accept a promise in return for his promise, and does not insist on the performance of the act or forbearance stipulated for, such promise is as lawful a consideration as the doing of the thing promised would have been,1 if such promise is one which is not absolutely void by reason of the incapacity of the promisor or by reason of other

1 United States. McKell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 186 Fed. 39, 108 C. C. A. 141 [affirming 175 Fed. 321, 99 C. C. A. 109].

Arkansas. Kilgore Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 98 Ark. 219, 135 S. W. 858.

California. Wells v. Enright, 127 Cal. 669, 60 Pac. 439.

Georgia. Phares v. Stover, 136 Ga. 843, 72 S. E. 344; Zipperer v. Helmnly, - Ga. - , 97 S. E. 74.

Illinois. Brown v. Rounsavell, 78

111. 589.

Indiana. Davis v. Calloway, 30 Ind.

112, 95 Am. Dec. 671; Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Stowman, 16 Ind. App. 205, 44 N. E. 940, 558; Steves v. Frazee, 19 Ind. App. 284, 49 N. E. 385.

Iowa. Neola Elevator Co. v. Kruck-man (la.), 171 N. W. 743.

Kansas, Kramer v. Walters, - Kan. - , 172 Pac. 1013.

Kentucky. Pike v. Thomas, 7 Ky. (4 Bibb) 486, 7 Am. Dec. 741; Cowan v. Hite, 9 Ky. (2 A. K. Mar.) 238; Harper v. Ry. Co. (Ky.), 22 S. W. 849; Elkhorn Consolidated Coal & Coke Co. v. Eaton, 163 Ky. 306, 173 S. W. 798.

Maine. Babcock v. Wilson, 17 Me. 372, 35 Am. Dec. 263; Preble v. Hunt, 85 Me. 267, 27 Atl. 151.

Michigan. Mohr Hardware Co. v. Dubey, 136 Mich. 677, 100 N. W. 127; Garlock v. Motz Tire & Rubber Co., 192 Mich. 665, 159 N. W. 344.

Missouri. Hudson v. Browning, 264 Mo. 58, 174 S. W. 393; Green v. Whaley, 271 Mo. 636, 197 S. W. 355.

Nebraska. Pryor v. Hunter, 31 Neb. 676, 48 N. W. 736; Brown v. Webster, 90 Neb. 591, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1196, 134 N. W. 185; Lamb v. Wilson, 3 Neb.

(unofficial) 505, 97 N. W. 325 [vacating 3 Neb. (unofficial) 496, 92 N. W. 167, and rehearing denied, 70 Neb. 729, 98 N. W. 37].

New Jersey. United & Globe Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Conard, 80 N. J. L. 286, 78 Atl. 203.

New Mexico. Chappell v. McMillan, 15 N. M. 086, 113 Pac. 611.

New York. Tucker v. Woods, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 190, 7 Am. Dec. 305; Gould v. Banks, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 562, 24 Am. Dec. 90; Utica, etc., Ry. Co. v. Brinckerhoff, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 139, 34 Am. Dec. 220; Tradesmen's National Bank v. Curtis, 167 N. Y. 194, 52 L. R. A. 430, 60 N. E. 429; Weed v. Spears, 193 N. Y. 289, 86 N. E. 10; Reilly v. Barrett, 220 N. Y. 170. 115 N. E. 453; Jermyn v. Searing, 225 N. Y. 525, 122 N. E. 706.

North Carolina. Howe v. O'Mally, 5 N. Car. (1 Murph.) 287, 3 Am. Dec 693.

Ohio. Shields v. Titus, 46 O. S. 528, 22 N. E. 717.

Oregon. Manary v. Runyon, 43 Or. 495, 73 Pac. 1028; Larrabee v. Bjork-man, 79 Or. 467, 155 Pac. 974.

Pennsylvania. Ames v. Pierson, 174 Pa. St. 597, 34 Atl. 317; McFeaters v. Pattison, 188 Pa. St. 270, 41 Atl. 609.

Texas. James v. Fulcrod, 5 Tex. 512, 55 Am. Dec 743; Flanders v. Wood, 83 Tex. 277, 18 S. W. 572; Lillard v. Oil Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 67, 36 S. W. 792; Arnold v. Chamberlain, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 39 S. W. 201.

Utah. Abba v. Smyth, 21 Utah 109, 59 Pac. 756.

Washington. Brown v. Brew, 99 Wash. 560, 169 Pac. 992.

Wyoming. Cramer v. Redman, 10 facts. The fact that one promise is contingent does not render the promise insufficient as a consideration,2 as long as the promisor is not free to refuse performance at pleasure.3 A promise to sell land,4 even if subject to vendor's subsequently obtaining a patent from the government for the realty contracted for, the purchase money to be returned if the patent is not issued;5 mutual promises to leave adjoining strips of land to secure light;6 a promise to sell personalty,7 even if on conditional sale, the title not passing till payment,8 or if subject to subsequent testing;9 to buy bonds;10 to buy claims against a third person;11 to pay money not due or owing;12 to exchange notes;13 to accept reductions in salaries;l4

Wyom. 328, 68 Pac. 1003. See Mutual Promise as a Consideration for Each Other, by C. C. Langdell, 14 Harvard Law Review, 496; What is a Promise in Law? by Clarence D. Ashley, 16 Harvard Law Review, 319; Consideration in Bilateral Contracts, by Samuel Williston, 27 Harvard Law Review, 503; Mutuality of Options, by R. T. Holland, 7 Michigan Law Review, 484, and The "Mutuality" Rule in New York, by Harlan F. Stone, 16 Columbia Law Review, 443.

2 Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Allen, 112 Cal. 455, 44 Pac. 796; Kernan v. Carter (Ky.), 104 S. W. 308. A contract for the sale of such quantity between a specified maximum and a specified minimum as the purchaser may elect is not lacking in mutuality. Southern Publishing Association v. Clements Paper Co. (Tenn.), L. R. A. 1918D, 580, 201 S. W. 745.

3 See Sec. 572 et seq.

4Easton v. Montgomery, 90 Cal. 307, 25 Am. St. Rep. 123, 27 Pac. 280; Hoagland v. Murray, 53 Colo. 50, 123 Pac. 664; Van Wert v. Grocery Co., 100 Mich. 328, 59 N. W. 139.

5 Southern Pacific Ry. v. Allen, 112 Cal. 455, 44 Pac. 796.

6 Knoch v. Haizlip, 163 Cal. 146, 124 Pac. 998.

7 Georgia. Allen v. Confederate Publishing Co., 121 Ga. 773, 49 S. E. 782.

Illinois. Minnesota Lumber Co. v. Coal Co., 160 111. 85, 31 L. R. A. 529, 43 N. E. 774.

Iowa. Neola Elevator Co. v. Kruck-man (la.), 171 N. W. 743.

Missouri. Baker v. Ry., 91 Mo. 152.

Pennsylvania. Flannery v. Wessels, 244 Pa. St. 321, 90 Atl. 715.

Tennessee. Cherry v. Smith, 22 Tenn. (3 Humph.) 19, 39 Am. Dec. 150; Southern Publishing Association v. Clements Paper Co. (Tenn.), L. R. A. 1918D, 580, 201 S. W. 745.

Wisconsin. McCall Co. v. Icks, 107 Wis. 232, 83 N. W. 300.

8 Beach's Appeal, 58 Conn. 464, 20 Atl. 475.

9 Schleicher v. Light Co., 114 Ala. 228, 21 So. 1014.

10 Ritchie v. McMullen, 79 Fed. 522, 25 C. C. A. 50. A conditional promise to buy stock is consideration for a promise by vendor to repurchase at the selling price with interest if the vendee wishes. White v. Taylor, 113 Mich. 543, 71 N. W. 871.