No genuine contract can exist if the intention of the parties is that no contractual relations shall exist between them.1 The acceptance of benefits which are intended to be gratuitous, does not create an implied contract to pay therefor.2 An ordinance which grants a license to a street railway company and imposes upon it the duty of grading the streets upon which its tracks were constructed, and of keeping a certain part thereof in repair, is not a contract that no further tax or imposition shall be imposed upon such railway.3 The fact that A has performed services or expended money in such a way that B will receive the benefit therefrom, does not impose a liability upon B unless B has agreed to compensate A therefor,4 or unless the circumstances are such as to impose a quasi-contractual liability upon B.5 The fact that A furnishes services for B in the hope that B will make a gift to A out of gratitude for such services, does not amount to an agreement, even though B knows of A's hopes.6 The same result follows where A renders services for B in the hope that B will thereafter enter into a contract with A.7 If A receives a benefit from B, who furnishes such benefit under a contract with X, B can not recover from A for such benefit if X fails to perform.8 If a subcontractor does certain work under a contract with the principal contractor, he can not treat the owner's acceptance of the benefits of such work as an agreement on the part of the owner to compensate him therefor,9 even if he understood that the owner would compensate him, such understanding not being induced by the owner.10 If two corporations are sued jointly and their defense is undertaken by an attorney who is retained by one of such corporations at an annual salary, the corporation which has employed him can not recover for his services from the other corporation in the absence of an agreement by such other corporation to pay for such services.11

Oregon. Stamm v. Wood, 86 Or. 174, 168 Ac. 69.

Rhode Island. Clary v. Wolf, 34 R. I. 263, 83 Atl. 115.

South Carolina. Wallingford v. Columbia, etc., R. R. Co., 26 S. Car. 258, 7 S. E. 19.

South Dakota. Kelly v. Wheeler, 22 S. D. 611, 119 N. W. 994.

Virginia. Creecy v. Grief, 108 Va. 320, 61 S. E. 769.

Washington. Thayer v. Harbican, 70 Wash. 278, 126 Ac. 625.

Wisconsin. Lawrence v. Ry. Co., 84 Wis. 427, 54 N. W. 797; Lewis v. Newton, 93 Wis. 405, 67 N. W. 724; Jacob Johnson Fish Co. v. Hawley, 150 Wis. 578, 137 N. W. 773.

See Offer and Acceptance, and Some of the Resulting Legal Relations, by Arthur L. Corbin, 26 Yale Law Journal, 169.

3 Alabama. McGowin Lumber & Export Co. v. R. J. & B. F. Camp Lumber Co., 192 Ala. 35, 68 So. 263.

District of Columbia. Cunningham Mfg. Co. v. Rotograph Co., 30 D. C. App. 524, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 368.

Florida. Ross v. Savage, 66 Fla. 106, 63 So. 148.

Kentucky. Smith v. Richardson (Ky.), 104 S. W. 705, 31 Ky. L. R.

1082; Tucker v. Pete Sheeran, Bro. & Co., 155 Ky. 670, 160 S. W. 176.

Minnesota. Held v. Keller, 135 Minn. 192, 160 N. W. 487.

Mississippi. Yazoo & Miss. Valley Railroad Co. v. Jones, 114 Miss. 787, 75 So. 550. (The absence of estoppel is emphasized by the court.)

Missouri. Embry v. Dry Goods Co., 127 Mo. App. 383, 105 S. W. 777.

Oklahoma. Wm. J. Lemp Brewing Co. v. Secor, 21 Okla. 537, 96 Ac. 636; Dorman v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co., 41 Okla. 509, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 873, 139 Ac. 262.

Virginia. Creecy v. Grief, 108 Va. 320, 61 S. E. 769; Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. W. H. Roberts Lumber Co., 119 Va. 479, 89 S. E. 945.

See also, Mutual Assent in Contract Under the Civil Code of California, by Joseph L. Lewinsohn, 2 California Law Review, 345.

4 Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Snowden, 173 Ky. 664, 191 S. W. 439; State v. Board of State Prison Commissioners, 37 Mont. 378, 96 Ac. 736.

5 McCain v. Smith, 172 Mich. 1, 137 N. W. 616.

6 See Sec. 31, 47.

7 See Sec. 82 and 83, and ch. V1 et seq.

1 United States. St. Lotus v. United Railways Co., 210 U. S. 266, 52 L. ed. 1054.

Alabama, Alexander v. Alabama Western Railroad Co., 179 Ala. 480, 60 So. 295.

Louisiana. Louisiana & N. W. R. V. Athens Lumber Co., 134 La. 788, L. R. A. 1915B, 856, 64 So. 714.

Hew Hampehire. New Hampton Institution v. School District, 74 NT. H. 412, 68 Atl. 538.

Oklahoma. Remarkis v. Reid, - Okla. - , 166 Ac. 728.

2 Remarkis v. Reid, - Okla. - , 166 Ac. 728.

3 St. Louis v. United Railways Co., 210 U. S. 266, 52 L. ed. 1054. 4 Alexander v. Alabama Western R.

R. Co., 179 Ala. 480, 60 So. 295; Louisiana & N. W. R. R. v. Athens Lumber Co., 134 La. 788, L. R. A. 1915B, 856, 64 So. 714; M. Steinert & Sons Co. v. Jackson, 190 Mass. 428, N. E. 905. 5 See ch. XLIV.

6 Gillette's Appeal, 82 Conn. 500, 74 Atl. 762.

7 Lord v. United States, 217 U. S. 340, 54 L. ed. 790.

8 M. Steinert & Sons Co. v. Jackson, 190 Mass. 428, 76 N. E. 905; New Hampton Institution v. Northwood School District, 74 N. H. 412, 68 Atl. 538.

9 Alexander v. Alabama Western R. Co., 179 Ala. 480, 60 So. 295.

10 Conti v. Johnson, 91 Vt. 467, 100 Atl. 874.

If the creation of a tenancy from year to year by the act of the tenant in holding over beyond his original term is regarded as contractual in character, his act in holding over, when he is prevented by adverse circumstances from vacating, does not amount to an offer to renew if he has given notice to the lessor of the fact that he is thus prevented from vacating; and accordingly he can not be treated as renewing his lease at the election of the lessor.12