If a past transaction has created legal liability, whether contractual, quasi-contractual or tortious, and whether recognized by law or by equity, a subsequent promise by the party who is subject to such liability may be supported by such liability as a sufficient consideration.1

9 Dearborn v. Bowman, 44 Mass. (3 Met.) 155; Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 185 Mass. 306, 70 N. E. 202.

10 House v. Jackson, 24 Or. 89, 32 Pac. 1027.

11 Drake v. Bell, 61 N. Y. S. 657, 46 App. Div. 275 [affirming, 26 N. Y. Misc. 237, 55 N. Y. Supp. 945]. A consideration for a promise to pay for painting, plastering and glazing done in the wrong house.

1 England. Williams v. (O'Keefe [1910], A. C. 186.

United States. McKee v. Lamon, 159 U. S. 317, 40 L. ed. 165.

California. Jaffe v. Lilienthal, 86 Cal. 91, 24 Pac. 835.

Connecticut. Root v. New Haven Trust Co., 82 Conn. 600, 74 Atl. 950.

Florida. Ocklawaha River Farms Co. v. Young, - Fla. - , L. R. A. 1917F, 337, 74 So. 644.

Georgia. Gray v. Phillips, 88 Ga. 199, 14 S. E. 205; Sutton v. Ford, 144 Ga. 587, L. R. A. 1918D, 561, 87 S. E. 799; Yates v. Bank, - Ga. - , 96 S. E. 427.

Indiana. Comstock v. Coon, 135 Ind. 640, 35 N. E. 909.

Iowa. Kerr v. Yager, 158 la. 69, 138 N. W. 905; Illinois Central R. Co. v.

Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 164 N. W. 208. [Opinion modified on petition for rehearing, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 165 N. W. 993.]

Kentucky. Steinriede v. Tegge (Ky.), 14 S. W. 357; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. O'Bryan, 180 Ky. 277. L. R. A. 1918E, 574, 202 S. W. 645.

Maryland. Callahan v. Linthicum, 43 Md. 97, 20 Am. Rep. 106.

Missouri Hill v. Mining Co., 124 Mo. 153, 25 S. W. 926, 32 S. W. 111.

New Mexico. Armijo v. Henry, 14 N. M. 181, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 275, 89 Pac. 305.

South Carolina. Hailo v. Morgan, 2d S. Car. 601; Brown v. Brown, 44 S. Car. 378, 22 S. E. 412.

Vermont Cobb v. Cowdery, 40 Vt. 25, 94 Am. Dec. 370; Franklin, etc., School v. Bailey, 62 Vt. 467, 10 L. R. A. 405, 20 Atl. 820; Durfey v. South Burlington, 65 Vt. 412, 26 Atl. 587; Baldwin v. Worcester, 66 Vt. 54, 28 Atl. 633.

Wisconsin. Paine v. Benton, 32 Wis. 491. See Antecedent Indebtedness as Constituting Value in New York, by David H. Miller, 13 Columbia Law Review 612.

A liability in equity,2 such as that of a trustee,3 a pre-existing debt;4 a liability growing out of an ante-nuptial contract;5 a liability as surety,6 or indorser;7 a principal's liability to indemnify a surety or guarantor;8 a duty to return collateral when the debt is paid;9 a duty to a director who has paid for stock issued to him with property at an excessive valuation;10 the duty of a husband to support his wife;11 the liability of a husband upon an order to pay a certain amount of money at certain intervals for the support of the children and for alimony;12 the statutory obligation of the father of an illegitimate child to provide for its support;13 the liability of a town to support its paupers;14 or of the state to care for school lands and apply the income to school purposes;15 and a liability caused by a city's issuing valid warrants and then exhausting the fund by a misappropriation,16 are all sufficient considerations to support an express promise based on such liability, made by the party liable therefor. A promise by a corporation to reimburse A, who had been the sole stockholder and who had managed the business as if it had been his unincorporated personal business, for goods which A had bought for the corporation and for which he had paid personally, is supported by sufficient consideration.17 The duty of a street railway and a railway to provide for the care of the public is consideration for a contract between them to divide the expense of a watchman if required by the city.18 The liability of an interurban railway which is about to cross the track of a steam railway to pay the expense necessary to prevent such crossing from interfering unduly with the operation of the steam railway, is consideration for a contract to divide the expense of maintaining a flagman.19

2 Proctor v. Cole, 104 Ind. 373, 3 N. E. 106, 4 N. E. 303; Callahan v. Lin-thicum, 43 Md. 97, 20 Am. Rep. 106.

3McKee v. Lamon, 159 U. S. 317, 40 L. ed. 165.

4 California. Hart v. Church, 126 Cal. 471, 77 Am. St. Rep. 195, 58 Pac. 910.

Indiana. Comstock v. Coon, 139 Ind. 640, 35 N. E. 909.

Idaho. First National Bank v. Grig-non, 7 Ida. 646, 65 Pac. 365.

Kentucky. Steinriede v. Tegge (Ky.), 14 S. W. 357; Cumberland Valley Bank's Assignee v. Citizens' National Bank (Ky.), 78 S. W. 889.

Louisiana. Bank v. Planting & Refining Co., 107 La. 650, 31 So. 1031.

Missouri. North Atchison Bank v. Gay, 114 Mo. 203, 21 S. W. 479.

New York. National Bank v. Place, 86 N. Y. 444.

South Carolina. Haile v. Morgan, 25 S. Car. 601. As where at the request of a prospective son-in-law the father of the bride expended money for a wedding, a trousseau and household goods for the married couple. Jaffe v. Lilienthal, 86 Cal. 91, 24 Pac. 835.

5 Ransdel v. Moore, 153 Ind. 303, 56 L. R. A. 753, 56 N. E. 767.

6Pauly v. Murray, 110 Cal. 13, 42 Pac. 313.

7 Bromley v. Hawley, 60 Vt. 46, 12 Atl. 220.

8 Smith v. Rankin, 45 Kan. 176, 25 Pac. 586; Carroll v. Sullivan, 103 Mass. 31.

9 Gray v. Phillips, 88 Ga. 199, 14 S. E. 205.

10 Hill v. Mining Co., 124 Mo. 153, 25 S. W. 926, 32 S. W. 111.

11 Brown v. Brown, 44 S. Car. 378, 22 S. E. 412.

12Ward v. Goodrich, 34 Colo. 369, 82 Pac. 701.

13 Hargroves v. Freeman, 12 Ga. 342; Allen v. Davison, 19 Ind. 416.

This is called a moral obligation in Trayer v. Setzer, 72 Neb. 845, 101 N. W. 989.

14 Even where the promise to pay for their support is made to the father, Baldwin v. Worcester, 66 Vt. 54, 28 Atl. 633; or the mother, Durfey v. South Burlington, 65 Vt. 412, 26 Atl. 587, the pauper being emancipated, and it does not appear that the parent is "of sufficient ability," and the statute requires the parent to support adult or emancipated children only if "of sufficient ability."

15Franklin, etc., School v. Bailey, 62 Vt. 467, 10 L. R. A. 405, 20 Atl. 820.

If property was transferred,20 or services were rendered under such circumstances as to create a legal liability against the promisor,21 or if they create a liability which is voidable,22 they constitute a consideration for a subsequent express promise to pay for them. If money was loaned in reliance on debtor's promise to furnish additional security, such additional security is supported by a valuable consideration and is not merely on past consideration.23

16 Quaker City National Bank v. Ta-coma, 27 Wash. 259, 67 Pac. 710.

17 Taylor v. Danielsonville Cotton Co., 82 Conn. 220, 72 Atl. 1080.

18 Beaumont Traction Co. v. Texar-kana & Ft. Smith Ry. Co., 103 Tex. 40, 123 S. W. 124.

19 Illinois Central R. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 164 N. W. 208. [Opinion modified on petition for rehearing, Illinois Central R. Co. v. Waterloo, C. F. & N. Ry. Co., - la. - , 165 N. W. 993.]

20 Smith v. Rankin, 45 Kan. 176, 25 Pac. 586; Citizens' Bank v. Millett, 103 Ky. 1, 44 L. R. A. 664, 44 S. W. 366; Pool v. Horner, 64 Md. 131, 20 Atl. 1036; Chadwick v. Knox, 31 N. H. 226, 64 Am. Dec 329.

21 National Loan & Investment Co. v. Rockland Co., D4 Fed. 335, 36 C. C. A. 370; Parke & Lacy Co. v. San Francisco Bridge Co., 145 Cat. 534, 78 Pac. 1065 [rehearing denied, 145 Cal. 534, 79 Pac. 71]; Daily v. Minnick, 117 la. 563, 60 L. R. A. 840, 91 N. W. 913; Stuht v. Sweesy, 48 Neb. 767, 67 N. W. 748.

22 Jackson v. Hough, 38 W. Va. 236, 18 S. E. 575.

23 Califorma. Winders v. Sperry, 96 Cal. 194, 31 Pac. 6; Pauly v. Murray, 110 Cal. 13, 42 Pac. 313; Stroud v. Thomas, 139 Cal. 274, 96 Am. St. Rep. 111, 72 Pac. 1008.

Kentucky. Deposit Bank v. Peake, 110 Ky. 579, 62 S. W. 268; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. O'Bryan, 180 Ky. 277, L. R. A. 1918E, 574, 202 S. W. 645.

Maine. Childs v. Wyman, 44 Me. 433, 69 Am. Dec 111.

Massachusetts. Robertson v. Row-eft, 158 Mass. 94, 35 Am. St. Rep. 466, 32 N. E. 898.

If an oral agreement to guarantee a debt is made when it is incurred, a subsequent written guaranty based on such promise is valid.24 Thus where A had agreed to give his personal draft on B to C, to take up B's debt to C, and in reliance upon such contract C advances money to B and A gives such draft which is not paid by B, A's liability on such draft is supported by sufficient consideration.25 If an oral contract is performed on one side before it is reduced to writing, such performance is sufficient consideration for such subsequent written contract.26 If A and B, who were husband and wife, had made an oral contract with reference to the distribution of their respective estates, B's execution of a written contract conforming to the oral agreement is supported by such oral agreement as a sufficient consideration.27 A subsequent written promise not to compete, which had been agreed upon as part of the original contract, but by mistake had been omitted from the written instrument, is based upon sufficient consideration.28 If A invests B's money in notes secured by mortgages which are certified by a notary public to be genuine, but which are forgeries, A's promise to B to reimburse B for such loss is supported by sufficient consideration.29

The receipt of assets of a decedent's estate liable to be taken for his debts is a consideration for a promise to pay such debts.30

Michigan. Steers v. Holmes, 79 Mich. 430, 44 N. W. 922.

Minnesota. Bowen v. Thwing, 56 Minn. 177, 57 N. W. 408.

Nebraska. Baker v. Bank, 63 Neb. 801, 93 Am. St. Rep. 484, 89 N. W. 269.

New York. McNaught v. McLough-ry, 42 N. Y. 22, 1 Am. Rep. 487.

24 California. Stroud v. Thomas, 139 Cal. 274, 96 Am. St. Rep. 111, 72 Pac. 1008.

Indiana. Wills v. Ross, 77 Ind. 1, 40 Am. Rep. 279.

Kentucky. Deposit Bank v. Peak, 110 Ky. 579, 96 Am. St. Rep. 466, 62 S. W. 268.

Massachusetts. Moies v. Bird, 11 Mass. 436, 6 Am. Dec. 179.

New Jersey. Faust v. Rodelheim, 77 N. J. L. 740, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 189, 73 Atl. 491.

New York. Harrington v. Brown, 77 N. Y. 72.

25Citizens' Bank v. Millett, 103 Ky. 1, 44 L. R. A. 664, 44 S. W. 366. For a similar case see Placer County Bank v. Freeman, 126 Call 90, 58 Pac. 388.

26Noyes v. Young, 32 Mont. 226, 79 Pac. 1063.

27 Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 Pac. 819.

28 Andrews v. Kingsbury, 212 111. 97, 72 N. E. 11 [affirming, Andrews v. Kingsbury, 112 111. App. 518].

29 Hymen v. Parkerson, 140 La. 249, L. R. A. 1917B, 694, 72 So. 953. (In this case, however, A had declared that he should have exercised more care in making such investment.)

30 Promise by administrator, Carter v. Thomas, 3 Ind. 213; McGrath v. Barnes, 13 S. Car. 328, 36 Am. Rep. 687; Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S. W. 804.

Promise by the widow, French v. French, 91 la. 140, 50 N. W. 21, s. c,

The pre-existing liability must be a real one, however. Thus where A had promised to make a gift to B, but such gift never took effect for want of delivery, A's subsequent promise to B, based on A's supposed liability arising out of such gift, is void for want of consideration.31