The courts that enforce this rule show in their attempts to find some technical consideration in the transaction which would support the accord and satisfaction, that they regard the rule itself as a technicality.1 If the less amount is paid before it is due,2 or if it is paid at a place different from that at which it was payable originally,3 or if new security of any sort is given,4 including a mortgage given by the debtor upon his own property to secure such lesser sum,5 sufficient consideration is said to exist.

9 See Sec. 601. 10 See Sec. 610.

See also, Brown v. Lowndes County, - Ala. - , 78 So. 815.

11 Schlessinger v. Schlessinger, 39 Colo. 44, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 863, 88 Pac. 970.

12 Bassick Gold Mine Co. v. Beards-ley, 49 Colo. 275, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 852. 112 Pac. 770; Bennett v. Federal Coal & Coke Co., 70 W. Va. 456. 40 L. R. A. (N.S.) 588, 74 S. E. 418.

See S 602.

13 Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521, 37 L. R. A. 771, 21

So. 565; Frye v. Hubbell, 74 N. H. 358. 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197. 68 Atl. 325. See Sec. 596.

14 Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, 60 Am. St. Rep. 521, 37 L. R. A. 771, 21 So. 565.

See Sec. 601.

15 Frye v. Hubbell. 74 N. H. 358, 17 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1197, 68 Atl. 325.

1 Harper v. Graham, 20 Ohio 105.

2 England. Pinnel's Case, 5 Coke, 117a.

United States. Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham, 141 V. S. 564, 35 L. ed. 860.

Forbearance on the part of the debtor to take advantage of proceedings in bankruptcy has been held to be a sufficient consideration if the claim is one which would be discharged by bankruptcy.6 Unless the effect of such promise would be to prevent the debtor from taking advantage of bankruptcy proceedings, if he should decide to break his promise, it is difficult to see what value such promise would be to the creditor. If the claim is one which would not be affected by proceedings in bankruptcy,7 such as a claim of a wife against her husband for support,8 the contract to refrain from proceedings in voluntary bankruptcy is not a consideration.

Payment by a third person out of his own funds is a sufficient consideration,9 even if such third person may compel the original debtor to reimburse him thereafter for such advance.10 If, however, such third person is the agent of the debtor, and such payment is made out of the debtor's funds, it is generally held that the fact that such payment is made by the third person does not of itself amount to a consideration.11

Iowa. Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Ia. 462, 54 L. R. A. 802, 87 N. W. 427.

Maryland. Chicora Fertilizer Co. v. Dunan, 91 Md. 144, 50 L. R. A. 401, 46 Atl. 347.

New York. Bandman v. Finn, 185 N. Y. 508, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1134, 78 X. E. 175.

Wisconsin. Palmer v. Yager, 20 Wis. 01.

See Sec. 597 et seq.

3 Pinners Case. 5 Coke 117a; Harper v. Graham. 20 Ohio 105.

Contra, after maturity. Foster County State Bank v. Lammers, 117 Minn. 94. 134 N. W. 500.

Contra, unless debtor is put to trouble or expense by reason of change of place, Saunders v. Whitoomb, 177 Mass. 457, 59 N. E. 192.

See Sec. 598.

4Sibree v. Tripp, 15 M. & W. 23; In re Black Diamond Copper Mining Co., 11 Ariz. 415, 95 Pac. 117; Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, 11 L. R. A. 710, 26 N. E. 351.

See Sec. 599.

5 Jaffray v. Davis, 124 N. Y. 164, l1 L. R. A. 710, 26 N. E. 351.

6 Melroy v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. St. 381, 11 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1018, 67 Atl. 699.

See Sec. 562.

7 Sehlessinger v. Schlessinger, 39 Colo. 44, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 863, 88 Pac. 970.

8 Schlessinger v. Schlessinger, 39 Colo. 44, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 863, 88 Pac. 970.

9 England. Hirachand Punamchand v. Temple [1911], 2 K. B. 330.

Iowa. Marshall v. Bullard, 114 Ia. 462, 54 L. R A. 802, 87 N. W. 427.

Kansas. Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524, L. R. A. 1917A, 725, 158 Pac. 864.

New Jersey. Jackson v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 66 N. J. L. 319, 56 L. R. A 87, 49 Atl. 730.

Ohio. Leavitt v. Morrow, 6 O. S. 71, 67 Am. Dec. 334.

South Carolina. Ex parte Zeigler, 83 S. Car. 78, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1005, 64 S. E. 513, 016.