While the principles which apply in cases of new contracts are the same that apply in questions of consideration generally, there are some special peculiarities in the application of these principles, growing out of the fact that the parties have already entered into a contractual obligation. As in the case of other contracts,1 a subsequent contract which is to operate as a complete discharge or a modification of a prior contract, must itself be supported by sufficient valuable consideration.2 If the new contract is in writing it may import consideration.3

1 California. Ehrman v. Rosenthal, 117 Cal. 491, 49 Pac. 460.

Indiana. American Central Life Ins. Co. v. Rosenstein (Ind.), 88 N. E. 97.

Louisiana. People's Bank v. Shreve-port Ice & Brewing Co., 142 La. 802, 77 So. 636.

New York. Gifford v. Corrigan, 117 N. Y. 257, 15 Am. St. Rep. 508, 6 L. R. A. 610, 22 N. E. 756.

Wisconsin. Bassett v. Hughes, 43 Wis. 319.

2 Weed v. Spears, 193 N. Y. 280, 86 N. E. 10; Gibbons v. Grinsel, 79 Wis. 365, 48 N. W. 255.

J Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581, 16 S. E. 349; Hudson v. Hudson, 87 Ga. 678, 27 Am. St. Rep. 270, 13 S. E. 563.

4 Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 561, 16 S. E. 349.

5 Jordan v. Laverty, 53 N. J. L. 15, 20 Atl. 832.

6See Sec. 2394.

1 See Sec. 637 et seq.

For qualifications of this genera, rule, see Sec. 541, 601, 602, 603, 604 et seq.

2 California. In re McDougald's Estate.. 146 Cal. 196, 79 Pac. 875.

Iowa. Lamb's Estate v. Morrow, 140 Ia. 89, 18 L. R. A. (N.S.) 226, 117 ST. W. 1118.

Kentucky. People's Savings Bank v. Wright, 183 Ky. 362, 209 S. W. 342 (obiter).

Maryland. Linz v. Schuck, 106 Md 220, 124 Am. St. Rep. 481, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 789, 67 Atl. 286.

Virginia. Producers' Coal Co. v. Mifflin Coal Mining Co., - Va. - , 95 S. E. 948.

3 Commercial National Bank v. May, - Ia. - , 174 N. W. 646.