Since a genuine contract is an agreement which results in obligation and which is enforceable at law,1 it follows that agreement is essential to the existence of every genuine contract.2 It is said that no contract can exist, unless the minds of the parties to the contract actually meet.3 Mutual assent4 or mutuality and privity5 are said to be necessary.

1 See Sec. 37 et seq.

2 England. Ellis v. Kerr (1910), 1, ch. 529.

United States. St Louis v. United Railways Co., 210 U. S. 266, 52 L. ed. 1054; Lord v. United States, 217 U. S. 340, 54 L. ed. 790; Elliott Machine Co. v. United States, 44 Ct. Cl. 127.

Alabama. Sweeny v. Supply Co., 121 Ala. 454, 25 So. 575; Phillips-Boyd Pub. Co. v. McKinnon, 197 Ala. 443, 73 So. 43.

Arizona. Wadin v. Czuczka, 16 Ariz. 371, 146 Ac. 491.

Arkansas. McFarlane v. York, 90 Ark. 88, 117 S. W. 773; Porter v. Gossell, 112 Ark. 380, 166 S. W. 533.

California. Campbell v. Heney, 128 Cal. 109, 60 Ac. 532; Harper v. Gold-schmidt, 156 Cal. 245, 104 Ac. 451.

Georgia. Harris v. Lumber Co., 97 Ga. 465, 25 S. E. 519.

Illinois. Newlin v. Prevo, 90 III. App. 515. •

Iowa. Slaughter v. McManigal, 138 la. 643, 116 N. W. 726; Foshier v. Fetzer, 154 la. 147, 134 N. W. 556.

Kansas. Hogue v. Mackey, 44 Kan. 277, 24 Ac. 477; Matheney v. City of El Dorado, 82 Kan. 720, 109 Ac. 166; J. I. Case Plow Works v. Thorne, 102 Kan. 849, 172 Ac. 38; Mayer v. Sparks, 3 Kan. App. 602, 45 Ac. 249; Heiland v. Ertel, 4 Kan. App. 516, 44 Ac. 1005.

Louisiana. Pittsburgh, etc., Co. v. Slack & Co., 42 La. Ann. 107, 7 So. 230.

Massachusetts. Graves v. Dill, 159 Mass. 74, 34 N. E. 336; Johnson v. Norcross Bros. Co., 209 Mass. 445, 95 N. E. 833; Stroock Plush Co. v. New England Cotton Yarn Co., 213 Mass. 354, 100 N. E. 617.

Michigan. Sheridan v. Bank, 116 Mich. 545, 74 N. W. 874} Moore v.

R. R., 116 Mich. 196, 74 N. W. 497.

Minnesota. Ames & Frost Co. v. Smith, 65 Minn. 304, 67 N. W. 999; Stong v. Lane, 66 Minn. 94, 68 N. W. 765; Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220, 84 N. W. 742.

Mississippi. Alexander v. Telegraph Co., 67 Miss. 386, 7 So. 280; Yazoo & Miss. Valley Railroad Co. v. Jones, 114 Miss. 787, 75 So. 550; Couret v. Conner,

- Miss. - , 79 So. 230.

Missouri. Hammond v. Beeson, 112 Mo. 190, 20 S. W. 474; Sutter v. Raeder, 149 Mo. 297, 50 S. W. 813; Chapin v. Cherry, 243 Mo. 375, 147 S. W. 1084; State, exrel., v. Robertson, 271 Mo. 475, 191 S. W. 989.

Montana. State v. Board of State Prison Commissioners, 37 Mont. 378, 96 Ac. 736.

Nebraska. Melick v. Kelley, 53 Neb. 509, 73 N. W. 945; Krum v. Chamberlain, 57 Neb. 220, 77 N. W. 665, McGavock v. Morton, 57 Neb. 385, 77 N. W. 785.

New Jersey. Shaw v. Glass Works, 52 N. J. L. 7, 18 Atl. 696.

North Carolina. Rodgers v. Bell, 156 N. Car. 378, 72 S. E. 817; Elks v. North State Ins. Co., 159 N. Car. 619, 75 S. E. 808; Roberta Mfg. Co. v. Royal Exchange Assur. Co., 161 N. Car. 88, 76 S. E. 865.

North Dakota. Krause v. Krause, 30 N. D. 54, 151 N. W. 991; Shellburg v. Wilton Bank, - N. D. - , 167 N. W. 721.

Ohio. Columbus, etc., Ry. v. Gaffney, 65 O. S. 104, 61 N. E. 152.

Oklahoma. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Secor, 21 Okla. 537, 96 Ac. 636; Atwood v. Rose, 32 Okla. 355, 122 Ac. 929; Carter v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co., - Okla - , 160 Ac. 319.

That agreement is an essential element of contract is true of all contracts at modern law properly so called, though it has no application to those liabilities which arise without any agreement but which are classed with contracts for the historical reason that they were enforced at common law by an action in assumpsit.6 How far the law considers the actual mental intent of one or both of the parties to the contract, and how far it merely regards the legal effect of their outward acts is a question which has proved troublesome, and which is discussed elsewhere.7