lofs in confequence of placing his confidence in the CONSIDERother's engagements. See 1 Roll. Ab. 22. Pl. 23. Lane ATION. v. Malory, Hob. 4, 5. Bidwell v. Calton, Ibid, 216. Cro. Fac. 342. Dyer, 272. Pl. 31. Cro. Eliz. 63, 74, 75, 849, 881. Webb's cafe, 4 Leon. 110. 3 Bulft. 187. 1 Roll. Rep. 381; and 1 P. Contr. 344.

must be legal.

It is alfo neceffary that the confideration of an agree- Confideration ment should be legal, i. e. of fuch a nature as that it may confiftently with the preceding rules, induce a legal obligation. If, therefore, the confideration of an agreement be the doing fome a&t which the law prohibits, or be prejudicial to the interefts of fociety, or militate against the found principles of morality, or be offenfive to decency, it will be void. See Martin v. Blithman, Yelv. 197, a.

So if the confideration be the omiffion of fome act or duty which the law enjoins, or which the duties of morality and good confcience, or the public welfare requires, it will invalidate the agreement.

Confiderations

executed and

Confiderations are moreover either executed or executory; if the motive or inducement be executed and past, it executory. it is not in general a fufficient confideration upon which to ground a fubfequent agreement. Thus, where one, in confideration that another had built him a house, &c. agreed to pay fo much money, it was held to be no confideration, because perfectly paft. See cafes cited, 1 Pow. Contr. 348.

Cafes of this description are, however, to be distinguished from thofe where "although fome part of the confideration appears to be paft, yet the whole is but one tranfaction;" as in 2 Bulftr. 73. Peare v. Unger, Cro. Eliz. 94. Cro. Car. 409. Warren v. Morfe, Cro. Eliz. 138. 3 Salk. 96.

So too an agreement founded on a confideration exe

CONSIDER- cuted is good, if there were a prior duty or moral obliATION. gation in the party to do the thing ftipulated. 2 Blac.

Forbearance

of fuit.

Com. 445. Hodge v. Vavafor, 1 Roll. Rep. 413. Johnfon v. Aftell, 1 Leo. 198. 2 Ib. 111. Church v. Church, cited in Hunt v. Wooton, Sir J. Raymond, 260. Cro. Eliz. 130. Turner v. Watson, Bul. N. Pri. 147. Truman v. Fenton, Cowp. 544. Or if the confideration was at the defendant's Special inftance and request, for though the promise follows, yet it is not naked, but coupled with the preceding fuit or request. 3 Salk. 96. Lampleigh v. Brathwaite, Hob. 105. 1 Bulftr. 120. Dyer 272. pl. 31. Cro. Car. 409. Cro. Eliz. 42, 252, 482. Bofden v. Thyn, Cro. Jac. 18. 2 Vent. 268. Pillans v. Mierop, 3 Bur. 1671.

Forbearance of fuit may also be made the confideration of an agreement, but in order to its effectually supporting the contract, two things must be attended to: ift, The forbearance muft either be general and abfolute, or else for a particular time certain and defined, and not for an uncertain, indefinite period. Longhill v. Broughton, Moore 1167. But forbearance for a reasonable time has been held to be fufficiently certain to be left to a jury. Lutwitch v. Huffey, Cro. Eliz. 19. Philips v. Sackford, Ib. 455. 2dly, The fuit to which the forbearance applies, must be such as is fupportable either at law, Hummers v. Hawton, Hard. 73, or equity, 3 Sulk. 96, against the defendant, or perfon from whom the obligation is faid to be due.

The confideration must also be valuable, and of moment to the parties, for idle and infignificant motives are not deemed confiderations. If, therefore, the matter in queftion be of fuch a nature, or fo affected by legal or equitable circumftances, as that the forbearance can

evidently fecure neither any benefit to the promifer, nor in- CONSIDERduce any lofs to the promisee, it will be looked upon as ATION. void and ineffectual. See Randall v. Harvey, Godb. 358.

Goodwin v. Willoughby, Hard. 73.

Ibid. Unless, indeed, the thing be fo

Lee v. Newcomb, colourable and plaufi

ble as to afford a reasonable prefumption that the plaintiff's claim be good, in which cafe forbearance will be a good confideration. Dyer 31, 272. Note. Woolafton v. Webb, Hob. 18.

good and valu

A contract or agreement may, we have seen, be fup- Confideration ported either by a valuable confideration, as marriage, able. work done, &c. or by a good confideration, as that of "blood or natural affection between near relations, the fatisfaction accruing from which the law esteems an equivalent, for whatever benefit may move from one near relation to another." 2 Blac. Com. 444. Beard v. Nuthall, Vern. 427.

differences.

But various other confiderations may nevertheless, if Adjustment of proceeding on equitable circumftances, be made the foundation of an agreement, as for ending difputes in a family. 1 Atk. 3. Winman v. Roper, 1 Chan. Rep. 84; or preventing litigation between ftrangers, and the like. Conn v. Conn, cited 1 Atk. 10, Gilmore v. Batifon, 1 Vern. 4. 2Vent. 353

need not be ex

agreement.

It is not in general neceffary that the confideration Confiderations should be expreffed in the agreement, it being fufficient preffed in the if it can be collected out of the circumstances. I Vern. 450. See also I Leon, 170. Moore 504, 570. Cro. Ja. 819. Pl. 14. Dyer 91 b. note. And as it feems to be the better opinion that if an express but infufficient confideration appear on the face of the agreement, no other can be implied. Bedell's cafe, 7 Rep. 40. 2 P. Wms.

CONSIDER- The confideration of agreements is, in practice, feldom ATION. inferted.

But per Parker, Ch. Juft. in Mitchel v. Reynolds, I P. Wms. 292, "it is beft that a good or fufficient confideration, in an agreement for reftraint of trade, fhould appear upon the face of the contract, because wherever fuch contract ftands indifferent, and for ought that is known may be good or bad, the law primâ facia prefumes it to be bad."

AGREEMENT S.

I. RELATIVE TO PURCHASES.

Articles of Agreement for the Sale of an Estate by two Jointenants, to be carried into Execution by a Decree in Equity. Part of the Purchase Money to be paid to the Vendor's Banker, as a Depofit, and the Remainder into the Bank in the Name of the Accountant General.

ARTICLES of agreement indented, (a) had, made, concluded, and agreed upon this 4th day

PUR

CHASES.

(a) The difference between the effect of a decd poll, and an indenture, as stated in our ancient law authorities is, that the stipulations in a deed poll" fhall be conftrued to bind only the party exprefly entering into them; but the words of an indenture are deemed to be the words of both parties; and though purporting to be the words of only one of them, yet fhould the juftice of the cafe require it, they will be applied