By statute, in some jurisdictions, written contracts as a class import a consideration.1 Under such a statute a consideration will be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, even if the contract does not recite a considera-

5 First Presbyterian Church v. Dennis, 178 la. 1352, L. R. A. 1917C, 1005, 161 N. W. 183. (This remark was an obiter since, under the terms of the statute, there was a presumption of a consideration in case of a written contract.)

6 Williams Commission Co.'s Assignee v. Shirley, 136 Ky. 303, 124 S. W. 327; Jones v. Holliday, 11 Tex. 412, 62 Am. Dec. 487.

7 Conrad Seipp Brewing Co. v. Mc-Kittrick, 86 Mich. 191, 48 N. W. 1086; Frank v. Irgens, 27 Minn. 43, 6 N. W. 380; Leonard v. Sweetzer, 16 Ohio 1; Averett's Adm'r v. Booker, 56 Va. (15 Gratt.) 163, 76 Am. Dec. 203.

8 In re Wickersham's Estate, 153 Cal. 603, 96 Ac. 311.

9Finnerty v. Stratton's Estate, 53 Colo. 17, 123 Ac. 667.

10Quimby v. Morrill, 47 Me. 470.

1 United States. Southern Ry. Co. v. Blunt, 155 Fed. 496.

California. Toomy v. Dunphy, 86 Cal. 639, 25 Ac. 130; Kennedy v. Lee, 147 Cal. 596, 82 Ac. 257; In re Thomson's Estate, 165 Cal. 290, 131 Ac. 1045; Gardner v. Watson, 170 Cal. 570, 150 Ac. 994; Anderson v. Wickliffe, - Cal. - , 172 Ac. 381.

Iowa. First M. E. Church v. Donnell, 95 la. 494, 64 N. W. 412; Kcnigsberg v. Reininger, 159 la. 548, 141 N. W. 407; Mahcska County State Bank v. Brown, 159 la. 577, 141 N. W. 459; Gould v. Gunn, 161 la. 155, 140 N. W. 380; Geddes v. McElroy, 171 la. 633, 154 N. W. 320.

Kansas. Fuller v. Scott, 8 Kan. 27; Waynick v. Richmond,* 11 Kan. 488; Roller v. Ott, 14 Kan. 609; Avery Manufacturing Co. v. Lambertson, 74 Kan. 304, 86 Ac. 456.

Missouri. Wulze v. Schaefer, 37 Mo. App. 551.

Montana. Noyes v. Young, 32 Mont. 226, 79 Ac. 1003; Dackich v. Barich, 37 Mont. 490, 97 Ac. 931.

New Mexico. First National Bank v. Home Ins. Co., 10 N. M. 66, 113 Ac. 815.

Oklahoma. Ball v. White (Okla.), 150 Ac. 901.

South Dakota. Grimsrud Shoe Co. v. Jackson, 22 S. D. 114, 115 N. W. 656; Brown v. Edsall, 23 S. D. 610, 122 N. W. 65S; Kimm v. Wolters, 28 S. D. 255, 133 N. W. 277.

Texas. Howard v. Zimpclman (Tex.), 14 S. W. 59; Tillman v. Heller, 78 Tex. 597, 22 Am. St. Rep. 77, 11 L. R. A. 628, tion.2 In some states this is true of any direct promise to pay-money.3 An assignment, in writing, of a note and a mortgage, imports consideration.4 Even under such statutes, no such presumption exists where the written contract shows affirmatively that no consideration exists.5 If the statute provides that a contract which is in writing and signed by the promisor shall import a consideration, no presumption of consideration exists if the contract is in writing, but is not signed.6