The giving up a suit instituted to try a question respecting which the law is doubt ful, or is supposed by the parties to be doubtful, is a good consideration for a promise; Poll. Contr. 180; Leake, Contr. 626 ; L. R. 5 Q. B. 241; Hunter v. Lanius, 82 Tex. 677, 18 S. W. 201; Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 509, 4 Am. Dec. 477; 2 C. B. 548; 4 East 455; Feeter v. Weber, 78 N. Y. 334 ; Parker v. Enslow, 102 Ill. 272, 40 Am. Rep. 588; Livingston v. Smith, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 98, 8 L. Ed. 57; Easton v. Easton, 112 Mass. 438; Grandin v. Grandin, 49 N. J. Law, 508, 9 Atl. 756, 60 Am. Rep. 642 ; Feeter v. Weber, 78 N. Y. 334 ; Prout v. Fire Dist., 154 Mass. 453, 28 N. E. 679, and cases cited.
Incurring a legal liability to a third party is a valid consideration for a promise by the party at whose request the liability was incurred; L. R. 8 Eq. 134.
Refraining from the use of liquor and tobacco for a certain time at the request of another, is a sufficient consideration for a promise by the latter to pay a sum of money; Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N. Y. 538, 27 N. E. 256, 12 L. It. A. 463, 21 Am. St. Rep. 693.
The assignment of a debt or chose in ac tion (unless void by reason" of maintenance) with the consent of the debtor, is a good consideration for the debtor's promise to pay the assignee. It is merely a promise to pay a debt due, and the consideration is the discharge of the debtor's liability to the assignor; 4 B. & C. 525 ; 13 Q. B. 548; Whittle v. Skinner, 23 Vt. 532; Harrison v. Knight, 7 Tex. 47; Edson v. Fuller, 22 N. H. 185 ; 10 J. B. Moo. 34 ; 2 Bingh. 437 ; 1 Cr. M. & R. 430; Morse v. Bellows, 7 N. H. 549, 28 Am. Dec. 372. Work and serv ice are perhaps the most common considera tions.
In the case of deposit or mandate it was once held that there was no consideration ; Yelv. 4, 128 ; Cro. 883; the reverse is now usually maintained; 10 J. B. Moo. 192; 2 M. & W. 143 ; M'Cl. & Y. 205; Robinson v. Threadgill, 35 N. C. 39; Clark v. Gaylord, 24 Conn, 484; Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Sm. Lead. Cas. 354.
In these cases there does not appear to be any benefit arising from the bailment to the promisor. The definitions of mandate and deposit exclude this. Nor does any in jury at the time accrue to the promisee ; the bailment is for his benefit entirely.
Trust and confidence in another are said to be the considerations which support this contract. But we think parting with the possession of a thing may be considered an injury to the promisee, for which the pros pect of return was the consideration held out by the promisor.
Mutual promises made at the same time are concurrent •considerations, and will sup port each other if both be legal and bind ing; Cro. Eliz. 543; 6 B. & C. 255; 3 B. & Ad. 703; 3 E. L. & Eq. 420; Dorsey v. Pack wood, 12 How. (U. S.) 126, 13 L. Ed. 921; Babcock v. Wilson, 17 Me. 372, 35 Am. Dec. 263 ; Forney v. Shipp, 49 N. C. 527; Nott v. Johnson, 7 Ohio St. 270; Cherry v. Smith, 3 Humphr. (Tenn.) 19, 39 Am. Dec. 150; Mil ler v. Drake, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 45 ; Howe v. O'Mally, 5 N. C. 287, 3 Am. Dec. 693 ; Mc Kinley v. Watkins, 13 Ill. 140 ; Byrd v. Fox, 8 Mo. 574; Flanders v. Wood, 83 Tex, 277, 18 S. W. 572; Earle v. Angell, 157 Mass. 294, 32 N. E. 164 ; Bracco v. Tighe, 75 Hun 140, 27 N. Y. Supp. 34. Yet the promise of an infant is a consideration for the promise of an adult. The infant may avoid his con tract, but the adult cannot ; Boyden v. Boy den, 9 Mete. (Mass.) 519; McGinn v. Shaef fer, 7 Watts (Pa.) 412; Hunt v. Peake, 5 Cow. (N. 15 Am. Dec. 475; Pool v. Pratt, 1 D. Chipm. (Vt.) 252 ; Cannon v. Als bury, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 76, 10 Am. Dec. 709; Eubanks v. Peak, 2 Bail. (S. C.) 497; 3 Maule & S. 205. While a contract is execu tory, an agreement by one party to modify it is a consideration for a like agreement by the other ; Dickson v. Owens, 134 Ill. App. 561; and a contract of employment is not lacking in mutuality because the party em ployed does not bind himself to continue in the employment for a definite period; Newhall v. Printing Co., 105 Minn. 44, 117 N. W. 228, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) $99.
Marriage is a valuable consideration; Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 537; Huston's Adm'r v. Cantril, 11 Leigh (Va.) 136 ; Magniac v. Thompson, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 348, 8 L. Ed. 709;, Donallen v. Lennox, 6 Dana (Ky.) 89; 2 D. F. & J. 566; Edwards v. Mar tin, 39 Ill. App. 145; Prignon v. Doussat, 4 Wash. 199, 29 Pac. 1046, 31 Am. St. Rep. 914 ; Whitehill's Lessee v. Lousey, 2 Yeates (Pa.) 109; Nally v. Nally, 74 Ga. 669, 58 Am. Rep. 458. A promise by one to support an other in consideration of the other party's release of the first party from his promise to marry her, is valid and enforceable; Henderson v. Spratlen, 44 Colo. 278, 98 Pac. 14, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 655.