An express promise to perform a previous legal obligation, without any new consider ation, does not create a new obligation; 7 Dowl. 781; Reynolds v. Nugent, 25 Ind. 328 ; 15 C. B. 295 ; 16 Q. B. 689 ; Vanderbilt v. Schreyer, 91 N. Y. 401; Withers v. Ewing, 40 Ohio St. 400; Conover v. Stillwell, 34 N. J. L. 54; Cobb v. Cowdery, 40 Vt. 28, 94 Am. Dec. 370; Runnamaker v. Cordray, 54 'IL 303 ; Warren v. Hodge, 121 Mass. 106. The prom ise of one party under an existing contract to perform his obligation is not a valid consid eration for a new promise by the other party ; Wescott v. Mitchell, 95 Me. 377, 50 Atl. 21; so where one party promises to do less than he has already agreed to do and the other party promises to do more than he is oblig ed to do ; Weed v. Spears, 193 N. Y. 289, 86 N. E. 10 ; and where the consideration of the new contract is services which one is legally bound to perform under a pre-exist ing contract ; Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Do menico, 117 Fed. 99, 54 C. C. A. 485; contra, where additional compensation is promised to induce another to complete his contract after abandonment on account of unfore seen and unanticipated difficulties; Linz v. Schuck, 106 Md. 220, 67 Atl. 286, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 789, 124 Am. St. Rep. 481, 14 Ann. Cas. 495. Whether (a) the performance of an existing contractual obligation or (b) a new promise of such performance made to a new promisee is a good consideration for a new contract has been much discussed by legal writers. That neither is good is main tained by Anson and Williston; that both are good is the view of Ames (who even holds that a new promise of the same thing to the same promisee may be good) and Har riman; that (a) is not good, but (b) is, is the opinion of Langdell, Leake and Pollock and (for not quite the same reason) Beale. See 20 L. Q. R. 9. See Articles on considera tion in 9 Harv. L. R. 233 ; 12 id. 517 ; 17 id. 71; 17 Yale L. Journal, 338; 17 L. Q. R. 415.
A valuable consideration alone is good as against subsequent purchasers and attach ing creditors; and one which is rendered at the request, express or implied, of the promisor ; Dy. 172, n.; 1 Rolle, Abr. 11, pl. 2, 3 ; 1 Ld. Raym. 312; 1 Wms. Saund. 264, n. (1); 6 Ad. & E. 718 ; 3 C. & P. 36; 6 Ana. & W. 485 ; 3 Q. B. 234; Cro. Eliz. 442 ; Hort v. Norton, 1 McCord (S. C.) 22.
Among valuable considerations may be mentioned these: In general, the waiver of any legal or equitable right at the request of another is sufficient consideration for a promise ; Knapp v. Lee, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 452 ; Farmer v. Stew art, 2 N. H. 97 ; Nicholson v. May, 1 Wright (Ohio) 660; Smith , v. Weed, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 184, 32 Am. Dec. 525 ; Williams v. Alex ander, 39 N. C. 207; 4 B. & C. 8 ; Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 114, 8 L. Ed. 60 ; 4 Ad. & E. 108 ; Heitsch v. Cole, 47 Minn. 320, 50 N. W. 235 ; Fraser v. Backus, 62 Mich. 540, 29 N. W. 92 ; Vogel v. Meyer, 23 Mo. App. 427.
Forbearance for a certain or reasonable time to institute a suit upon a valid or doubtful claim, but not upon one utterly unfounded. This is a benefit to one party, the promisor, and an injury to the other, the promisee; 1 Rolle, Abr. 24, pl. 33 ; Cora. Dig. Action on the Case upon, Assumpsit (B, 1) ; L. R. 7 Ex. 235 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 92 ; L. R. 2 C. P. 196; Busby v. Conoway, 8 Md. 55, 63 Am. Dec. 688 ; King v. Upton, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 387, 16 Am. Dec. 266 ; Elting v. Vanderlyn, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 237; Jenni son v. Stafford, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 168, 48 Am.
Dec. 594; Giles v. Ackles, 9 Pa. 147, 49 Am. Dec. 551; McKinley v. Watkins, 13 Ill. 140; Gilman v. Kibler, 5 Humphr. (Tenn.) 19; Colgin v. Henley, 6 Leigh. (Va.) 85; 21 E. L. & Eq. 199 ; Mills' Heirs v. Lee, 6 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 91, 17 Am. Dec. 118 ; Hargroves v. Cooke, 15 Ga. 321; Boyd v. Freize, 5 Gray (Mass.) 553; Tappan v. Campbell, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 436 ; Sage v. Wilcox, 6 Conn. 81; 1 Bulstr. 41; Lonsdale v. Brown, 4 Wash. C. C. 148, Fed. Cas. No. 8494; Down ing v. Funk, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 69; Hakes v. Hotchkiss, 23 Vt. 235 ; Morgan v. Bank, 44 Ill. App. 582 ; 18 C. B. 273 ; Calkins v. Chand ler, 36 Mich. 320, 24 Am. Rep. 593; Wills v. Ross, 77 Ind. 1, 40 Am. Rep. 279 ; Edgerton v. Weaver, 105 Ill. 43; Johnston Harvester Co. v. McLean, 57 Wis. 258, 15 N. W. 177, 46 Am. Rep. 39. "If an intending litigant bona fide forbears the right to litigate a question of law or fact which it is not vex atious or frivolous to litigate, he does give up something of value." Lord Bowen in 32 Ch. Div. 266, 291. An agreement to forbear suit, though for an indefinite period, is suf ficient consideration ; Traders' Nat. Bank of San Antonio v. Parker, 130 N. Y. 415, 29 N. E. 1094 ; Mathews v. Seaver, 34 Neb. 592, 52 N. W. 283 ; Lancaster v, Elliot, 42 Mo. App. 503.
An invalid or not enforceable agreement to forbear is not a good consideration; suit may be brought immediately after the promise is made. The forbearance must be an enforceable agreement for a reasonable time ; Hardr. 5 ; 4 M. & W. 795; King v. Upton, 4 Greenl. (Me.) 387, 16 Am. Dec. 266; Rix v. Adams, 9 Vt. 233, 31 Am. Dec. 619; L. R. 8 Eq. 36; Tucker v. Ronk, 43 Ia. 80; Prater v. Miller, 25 Ala. 320, 60 Am. Dec. 521; Kidder v. Blake, 45 N. H. 530; Mul holland v. Bartlett, 74 Ill. 58 ; Cline v. Tem pleton, 78 Ky. 550. But if a meritorious claim is made in good faith, a forbearance to prosecute it may be a good considera tion for a promise, although on the facts or on the law the suit would have failed of success ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 449; Rue v. Meirs, 43 N. J. Eq. 377, 12 Atl. 369; 25 L. T. R. 504 ; 32 Ch. Div. 269; Hewett v. Currier, 63 Wis. 387, 23 N. W. 884 ; Fish v. Thomas, 5 Gray (Mass.) 45, 66 Am. Dec. 348; 10 Harr. L. Rev. 113.
Forbearance to prosecute a claim honestly made but not legally valid is no considera tion for a promise; Price v. Bank, 62 Kans. 743, 64 Pac. 639.
The prevention of litigation is a valid and sufficient consideration; for the law favors the settlement of disputes. Thus, a com promise or mutual submission of demands to arbitration is a highly favored consider ation at law ; Van Dyke v. Davis, 2 Mich. 145; Zane's Devisees v. Zane, 6 Munf. (Va.) 406; Taylor v. Patrick, 1 Bibb (Ky.) Truett v. Chaplin, 11 N. C. 178; Stoddard v. Mix, 14 Conn. 12; Barlow v. Ins. Co., 4 Mete. (Mass.) 270; Burnham v. Dunn, 35 N. H. 556; Blake v. Peck, 11 Vt. 483; Field v. Weir, 28 Miss. 56; Mayo v. Gardner, 49 N. C. 359; Pounds v. Richards, 21 Ala. 424; Stoddart v. Mix, 14 Conn. 12; Banks v. Sear les, 2 Malull. (S. C.) 356 ; Coleman v. Frum, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 378; Clarke v. McFar land's Ex'rs, 5 Dana (Ky,) 45 ; 21 E. ,L. & Eq. 199; 5 B. & Ald. 117 ; Battle v. Mc Arthur, 49 Fed. 715 ; Robson v. Logging Co., 43 Fed. 364; White v. Hoyt, 73 N. Y. 514; Barnes v. Ryan, 66 Hun 170, 21 N. Y. Supp. 127; Swem v. Green, 9 Colo. 358, 12 Pac. 202; Moon v. Martin, 122 Ind. 211, 23 N. E. 668; 32 Ch. D. 266.