The great weight of authority is to the effect that B's promise to buy of A and of no one else, is a consideration for A's promise to furnish whatever goods B may need or use in his business, and that such contract is valid, even though B's business may be such that B will not need any of such goods during the period fixed. In such jurisdictions such contract is held to be valid and to possess consideration and mutuality.1 A contract to furnish all the Portland cement that the purchaser might "require,"2 to furnish all the ice that the purchaser might use in his business during a certain period, the purchaser agreeing not to buy from any one else,3 to furnish all of the purchaser's "requirements, up to" five hundred man-hole frames and covers,4 to furnish the amount of paper which might be needed by an established business during a certain time,5 to furnish all the cans which a packing company will use during a certain time,6 to furnish all -the sugar,7 or bread,8 that the adversary party might use during a certain period, or to furnish all the coal that the purchaser may use,9 have all been held to be binding.

2Hazelhurst Lumber Co. v. Mercantile Lumber & Supply Co., 166 Fed. 101.

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

4Crane v. Crane, 105 Fed. 869, 45 C. C. A. 96; Jenkins v. Anaheim Sugar Co., 237 Fed. 278; Higbie v. Rust, 211 111. 333, 103 Am. St. Rep. 204, 71 N. E. 1010; Rehm-Zeiher Co. v. F. G. Walker Co., 156 Ky. 6, 49 L. R. A. (N.S.) 694, 160 S. W. 777; Tarbox v. Gotzian, 20 Minn. 139.

5 Jenkins v. Anaheim Sugar Co., 237 Fed. 278.

6 Jenkins v. Anaheim Sugar Co., 237 Fed. 278.

7 Scott v. T. W. Stevenson Co., 130 Minn. 151, 163 N. W. 316.

8 Hickey v. O'Brien, 123 Mich. 611,

81 Am. St. Rep. 227, 49 L. R. A. 594,

82 N. W. 241; E. G. Dailey Co. v. Clark Can Co., 128 Mich. 591, 87 N. W. 761.

9 Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., 155 Fed. 77, 83 C. C. A. 593, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 713.

1 United States. Loudenback Fertilizer Co. v. Phosphate Co., 121 Fed. 298, 61 L. R. A. 402, 58 C. C. A. 220; Lima Locomotive & Machine Co. v. National Steel Castings Co., 155 Fed. 77, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 713, 83 C. C. A. 593; T. B. Walker Mfg. Co. v. Swift, 200 Fed. 529; Jenkins v. Anaheim Sugar Co., 247 Fed. 958; L. R. A. 1918E, 293.

Arkansas. El Dorado Ice & Planing Mill Co. v. Kinard, 96 Ark. 184, 131 S. W. 460.

Colorado. Robert, etc., Co. v. Omaha, etc., Co., 16 Colo. 118, 26 Pac. 326.

Illinois. National Furnace Co. v. Mfg. Co., 110 111. 427; Minnesota, etc., Co. v. Coal Co., 160 111. 85, 31 L. R. A. 929, 43 N. E. 774 [reversing, 56 111. App. 248].

Louisiana. Nelson v. Barber, 143 La. 783, 79 So. 403 (obiter); Smith v. Morse, 20 La. Ann. 220.

Maryland. Parks v. Griffith & Boyd Co., 123 Md. 233, 91 Atl. 581.

Michigan. E. G. Dailey Co. v. Canning Co., 128 Mich. 591, 87 N. W. 761.

Mississippi Vicksburg Water-works Co. v. J. M. McGuffy Petroleum Co., 86 Miss. 60, 38 So. 302.

Missouri. Laclede Construction Co. v. Tudor Iron Works, 169 Mo. 137, 69 S. W. 384.

New York. Wells v. Alexandre, 130 N. Y. 642, 15 L. R. A. 218, 29 N. E. 142.

Utah. Western Macaroni Manufacturing Co. v. Fiore, 47 Utah 108, 151 Pac. 984.

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

2 Holmes v. Detroit, 158 Mich. 137, 122 N. W. 506.

3Hickey v. O'Brien, 123 Mich. 611,

81 Am. St. Rep. 227, 49 L. R. A. 594,

82 N. W. 241.

4 Stuart v. Home Telephone Co., 161 Mich. 123, 125 N. W. 720.

5 Excelsior Wrapper Co. v. Mesain-ger, 116 Wis. 549, 93 N. W. 459.

6E. C. Dailey Co. v. Clark Can Co., 128 Mich. 591, 87 N. W. 761.

7 Jenkins v. Anaheim Sugar Co., 247 Fed. 958.

8 Nelson v. Barber, 143 La. 783, 79 So. 403 (obiter).

9 Sterling Coal Co. v. Silver Springs Bleaching & Dyeing Co., 162 Fed. 848, 89 C. C. A. 520; Golden Cycle Mining Co. v. Rapson Coal Mining Co., 188 Fed. 179, 112 C. C. A. 95; McLean County Coal Co. v. Bloomington, 234 II. 90, 84 N. E. 624; Wells v. Alexandre, 130 N. Y. 642, 15 L. R. A. 218, 29 N. E. 142; McKeever v. Canonsburg Iron Co., 138 Pa. St. 184, 16 Atl. 97.

If A's promise is to furnish the material necessary for a certain specified piece of work, and B agrees to take the material necessary therefor, such contract possesses consideration, and is sufficiently definite, although the exact amount to be furnished is not known in advance to either party.10 Thus a contract to furnish to a contractor all the timber of certain dimensions and a certain quality which he may need for a specified building,11 or to furnish certain specified material necessary to construct a specified portion of a railway,12 is enforceable.

A promise by A to sell to B all that he may produce or manufacture during a certain space of time, is a sufficient consideration for B's promise to take such product and to pay therefor, even though it may be that A will not be able to manufacture or produce any of such product during such period of time.13 A contract to sell the entire output of a mill;14 A's promise to buy all the cross-ties of a certain kind which were manufactured by B, until A should notify B to discontinue manufacturing them;15 or a contract to deliver to B all the milk produced by A, amounting to twenty gallons or more per day, for a year, for which B agrees to pay a fixed price,16 is valid, and it is supported by sufficient consideration and it is sufficiently definite.

"Where A agreed to furnish B all the goods B needed for a certain period, B to take such amount, it is held B can not end the contract by selling his business.17 This result is undoubtedly right as to the validity of such contracts, though upon a fair construction, it may be doubted if the purchaser really meant to do more than to buy what he might need in his business in case he con-tinued such business. It is, accordingly, held in some cases that if

10 Browning v. North Missouri Cent. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 188 S. W. 143.

11Campfield v. Sauer, 164 Fed. 833, 91 C. C. A. 304.

12 Browning v. North Missouri Central Ry. (Mo.), 188 S. W. 143.

13Ramey Lumber Co. v. John Schroeder Lumber Co., 237 Fed. 39, 150 C. C. A. 241; Mclntyre Lumber & Export Co. v. Jackson Lumber Co., 165 Ala. 268, 138 Am. St. Rep. 66, 54 So. 767; Herrick v. Wardwell, 58 0. S. 204; Kenan v. Yorkville Cotton Oil Co., - S. Car. - , 96 S. E. 624.

14 Mclntyre Lumber & Export Co. v.

Jackson Lumber Co., 165 Ala. 268, 138 Am. St. Rep. 66, 51 So. 767; Thomas-Huycke-Martin Co. v. Gray, 94 Ark. 9, 125 S. W. 659. See also, Kenan v. Yorkville Cotton Oil Co., - S. Car. - , 96 S. E. 524.

15 Mclntyre Lumber & Export Co. v. Jackson Lumber Co., 165 Ala. 268, 51 So. 767.

16 Herrick v. Wardwell, 58 O. S. 294, 50 N. E. 903.

17Hickey v. O'Brien, 123 Mich. 611.

81 Am. St. Rep. 227, 49 L. R. A. 594,

82 N. W. 241; Wells v. Alexandre, 130 N. Y. 642, 15 L. R. A. 218, 29 N. E. 142.

B goes out of business in good faith,18 as where B, in good faith, forms a partnership with C,19 such withdrawal from business terminates B's liability under such a contract.

If the contract leaves the purchaser free to buy of some one other than the seller, such right is not given up and can not be a consideration.20 Whether the purchaser gives up such right or not, is a question of construction.21

Where by statute option contracts are made illegal in order to suppress gambling, such a contract is not an option.22