West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1906-03-15
NUMBER 20

doing something for me, or suffering
some loss, can be held 10 the
promise. 1t is in this sense that
the law requires that in order for
promise To be binding, it must have
a conslde"ation-another word for
price.
1t used TO be said that whenever
a promise was under seal, that is,
where it was in writing and the pro-
mlsor attached to his name his seal,
the law would forbid the promisor
from denying that there was con.
sideration. In other words, the
fact that seal appeared on the pro.
mise was evidence conclusive that
there a consideration received, and
in suit at law to compel the per
Torrance of the promise the pro-
misor could not bring in evidence
to the effect that he had received
nothing for the promise, and there.
fore was not bound by il. Our pre-.
sent law, however, has almost
wholly done away with this fiction.
Now the consideration of promise
may be inquired into, whether il be
under seal or not.
1t must not be thought that in or
der to support promise the other
party must necessarily give some.
thing or promise to give something.
IT he is to lose or suffer something
or promise 10 give up something the
consideration is valid one. If
promise to give you hundred dol
lars IT you stop smoking for six
months. | am bound to pay the one
hundred dollars. In this case you
have not given anything or pro.
missed to give anything to me, but
you have suffered loss, or have
given something, depending upon
the promise. 1t has always been
held that promise, that is, my pro-
mise to do something for you, IL
gwen in exchange for n promise by
you to do something for me, makes
valid contract. The most COM
mon example Of this sort of con-
tract is the marriage contract, under
which each party promises, and the
promise of each is consideration
for the promise Of the other
Sometimes it is not an easy mat
ter to determine whether the con
tract has consideration or not.
1t should be understood that where
one is already bound in the law to
do thing, his promise to do that
thing is not sufficient consider.
alton to support contract.
Suppose, for instance, that you
owe me a hundred dollars and the
debt is overdue. say to you, IF
you will pay me the hundred dollars
you owe me, will give you the rent
of house free for month"
Depending on my promise, you pay
me the hundred dollars, and | refuse
to give you the house. AMI iustif-
ed in law IN refusing2 What is the
consideration for my promise to
give you the house tree for month";
1t is the doing by you Of something
that you are already bound to do;
therefore the law says there is no
legal consideration, and It will not
compel me to let you have tae
house.
Suppose that you have minor
children and you do not support
them, as in law you arc bound TO
do, giving them food, shelter, medl.
cine, and education such as is
reasonable considering your abilities
etc. ! say to you, "If you will
treat your children for a year as you
are bound in the law to treat them.
] will give you FIVE hundred dollars
You accept the arrangement and
provide your children with clothing,
medicines, education, etc, as in
law you are bound to do, and then
ask me for the five hundred dollars.
and / refuse to give it to you. You
bring suit against me. Ny lawyer
IN court pleads that you were in law
already bound to do the thing,
which you promised to do. The
court agrees with him, and the case
is dismissed.
You start to build a house for me.
under a contract to complete il for
a certain amount. Before YOU
finish It, you find you arc going to
lose money. You say, az will not
finish it unless you pay me $500
more" make a promise to do so,
and you finish the house. The
question arises as to whether am
bound to pay the extra price that /
have promised. In good morals 1
may be bound to; in law, / am not.
CTo be conunucd.)
The State Supreme Court Of Iii