At common law negotiable contracts are said to import a consideration; that is, in the absence of evidence on the point it will be presumed that there was a sufficient consideration, and it is for the party denying the existence of a consideration to show that there was none.1 This is true even if no consideration is recited on the face of the instrument, and words, such as "value received," are wanting.2 An agreement to waive protest and a guaranty of prompt payment in a contract of indorsement made before delivery is prima facie on valuable consideration.3 A contract of indorsement is prima facie on valuable consideration as between the holder and the indorser.4 No presumption of consideration exists if it is shown that the negotiable instrument was obtained by undue influence.5

7 See Sec. 168.

8 See ch. XXXIX.

9 Hebbard v. Haughian, 70 N. Y. 54. 10Hebbard v. Haughian, 74 N. Y. 54.

See ch. LXIX.

1 United States. Mandeville v. Welch, 18 U. S. (5 Wheat.) 277, & L. ed. 87; Lipsmeier v. Vehslage, 29 Fed. 175.

California. Poirier v. Gravel, 8& Cal.

79, 25 Pac. 962; Moore v. GouW, 151 Cal. 723, 91 Pac. 616.

Colorado. Perot v. Cooper, 17 Colo.

80, 31 Am. St. Rep. 258, 26 Pac. 391. Connecticut. Bristol v. Warner, 19

Conn. 7.

Georgia. Gallagher v. Kitey, 116 Ga. 420, 41 S. E. 613.

Hawaii. Porter v. Kapiolani Estate, 18 Hawaii 299.

Illinois. McMicken v. Safford, 19T 11I. 540, 64 N. E. 540; Martin v. Martin, 202 111. 382, 67 N. E. 1; Whitford v. Herting, 60 111. App. 413.

Indiana. Keesling v. Watson, 91 Ind. 578.

Iowa. Wolf v. Wolf, 97 la. 279, 66 N. W. 170; Zimbelman v. Finnegan, 141 la. 358, 118 N. W. 312; Brokaw v. Mc-Elroy, 162 la. 288, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 835, 143 N. W. 1087.

Kentucky, Murry v, Clayborn, 6 Ky.

(2 Bibb.) 300; Whitteker v. Hokomb, 177 Ky. 790, 198 .S. W. 533.

Massachusetts. Perley v. Perley, 144 Mass. 104, 10 N. E. 726; Cherry v. Sprague, 187 Mass. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 381, 67 L. R. A. 33,72 N. E. 456.

Michigan. Manistee National Bank v. Seymour, 64 Mich. 59, 51 N. W. 140; Young v. Shepard's Estate, 124 Mich. 552, 83 N. W. 403.

Minnesota. Nichols, etc., Co. v. Ded-rick, 61 Minn. 513, 63 N. W. 1110.

Missouri. Cox v. Sloan, 158 Mo. 411, 57 S. W. 1052.

New Hampshire. Adams v. Hackett, 27 N. H. 289, 59 Am. Dec 376.

New Jersey. McCormack v. Williams, 88 N. J. L. 170, L. R. A. 1M7E, 695, 95 Atl. 978.

New York. Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462, 30 N. E. 487.

Ohio. Dalrympte v. Wyker, 60 O. S. 108, 53 N. E. 713.

South Carolina. Derry v. Holman, 27 S. Car. 621 (memorandum opinion)r 2 S. E. 841 (full report).

Tennessee. Boyd v. Johnston, 89 Tenn. 284, 14 S. W. 804.

Texas. Tillman v. Heller, 78 Tex. 597, 22 Am. St. Rep. 77, 11 L. R. A. 628, 14 S. W. 700.

Sec. 652. Presumption of consideration - Written non-negotiable instruments. In the absence of statute, a written non-negotiable contract as such does not import a consideration,1 if no consideration is recited therein.2 Thus a written stipulation that payment of a given note should be extended to a certain time does not import a consideration, as such stipulation is not a negotiable instrument.3 So a written contract to pay the debt of another does not import a consideration.4

West Virginia. McClain v. Lowther, 36 W. Va. 297, 13 S. E. 1003. Even if given by a bona fide purchaser of goods sold by one in order to defraud creditors, Tillman v. Heller, 78 Tex. 597, 22 Am. St. Rep. 77, 11 L. R. A. 628, 14 S. W. 700.

This is the rute under the Negotiable Instruments Law.

Connecticut. American Automobile Co. v. Perkins, 83 Conn. 520, 77 Atl. 954.

Missouri. Glascock v. Glascock, 217 Mo. 362, 117 S. W. G7.

Oregon. Fassett v. Boswell', 59 Or. 288, 117 Pac. 302.

South Dakota. Frick v. Hoff, 26 S.

D. 3(50, 128 N. W. 495.

Virginia. Reid v. Windsor, 111 Va. S25, 69 S. E. 1101.

'-Taylor v. Taylor's Estate, 138 Mich. 658, 101 N. W. 832; Clarke v. Marlow, 20 Mont. 249, 50 Pac. 713; Hubble v. Fogartie, 3 Rich. (S. Car.) 413, 45 Am. Dec. 775. So by statute, Carn-wright v. Gray, 127 N. Y. 92, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424. 12 L. R. A. 845, 27 N.

E. 835; Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Or. 315, 38 Pac. 189.

3 First National Bank v. Sproull, 105 Ala. 275, 16 So. 879. 4Scribner v. Hanke, 116 Cal. 613, 48

Pac. 714; Dumont v. Williamson, 18 O. S. 515, 98 Am. Dec. 186. So by statute, State Bank v. Morrison, 85 Wash. 182, 147 Pac. 875.

5 Meginnes v. McChesney, 179 la. 563, 160 N. W. 50 [sub nomine, Meginnes v. Copeland, L. R. A. 1917E, 1060].

1 Connecticut. Cook v. Bradley, 7 Conn. 57, 18 Am. Dec. 79; National Savings Bank v. Cable, 73 Conn. 568, 48 Atl. 428.

Illinois. Walters v. Short, 10 111. 252.

New Jersey. Conover v. Stilwell, 34 N. J. L. 54.

Tennessee. Read v. Wheeler, 8 Tenn. (2 Yerg.) 50.

Vermont. Denieon v. Tyson, 17 Vt. 549.

2Hemmenway v. Hickes, 21 Mass. (4 Pick.) 497; Joseph v. Catron, 13 N. M. 202, 81 Pac. 439; Jerome v. Whitney, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 321; Greer v. Latimer, 47 S. Car. 176, 25 S. E. 136.

3 Davis v. Stout, 126 Ind. 12, 22 Am. St. Rep. 565, 2& N. E. 862.

Contra, Kelly v. Bradford, 6 Ky. (3 Bibb.) 317, 6 Am. Dec. 656. (A bond "to make indefeasible title.")

4 Walker v. Patterson, 36 Me. 273; Schaus v. Henry, 89 N. J. L. 607, 99 Atl. 188.

. It has been said that, even in the absence of statute, there would be a presumption of a consideration for a written subscription to a church, of which the subscriber was a member and for the support of which he was bound morally.5 A written contract which recites a consideration,6 as by reciting that it is "for value received,"7 or by reciting it in detail,8 imports a consideration. An option in writing, which shows consideration on its face, is valid unless evidence is offered, showing that there was in fact no consideration.9 A written guaranty on the back of a note imports a consideration if one is recited therein.10