Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Showing-As-To-Consideration.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:40:00+00:00

Document:
Not only must a consideration for the promise sought to be enforced exist, but it must, according to the rulings in England, and probably in most of the states, expressly or impliedly appear in the memorandum. As stated by Lord Ellenborough in the leading case on this point, the reason for the rule is because the word "agreement," used in the statute, "is not satisfied unless there be a consideration, which consideration, forming part of the agreement, ought, therefore, to have been shown; and the promise is not binding by the statute unless the consideration which forms part of the agreement be also stated in writing."36 Other courts have refused to recognize this doctrine, though in some of these cases the statute used the word "promise" instead of "agreement."37 Most of lips v. Swank, 120 Pa. 76, 13 Atl. 712, 6 Am. St. Rep. 691. And see Falls of Neuse Mfg. Co. v. Hendricks, 106 N. C. 485, 11 S. E. 568. An agreement for the sale of a designated number of acres "in" a specified larger tract of land is not sufficient. Brockway v. Frost, 40 Minn. 155, 41 N. W. 411. And see Repetti v. Maisak, 6 Mackey, 366. See "Frauds, Statute of" Dec Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 109, 110, 158; Cent. Dig. §§ 222-286, 875.
34 Desmarais v. Taft, 210 Mass. 560, 97 N. E. 96. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 158; Cent. Dig. § 375.
35 Cole v. Cole, 99 Miss. 335, 54 South. 953, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 332; Bogard v. Barhan, 52 Or. 121, 96 Pac. 673, 132 Am. St. Rep. 676. See "Frauds, Statute of" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 109-111; Cent. Dig: §§ 222-237.
36 Wain v. Warlters, 5 East, 10. And see Sears v. Brink, 3 Johns. (N. T.) 210, 3 Am. Dec. 475; Taylor v. Pratt, 3 Wis. 674; Thompson v. Blanchard, 3 N. Y. 335; Ordeman v. Lawson, 49 Md. 135; Sloan v. Wilson, 4 Har. & J. (Md.) 322, 7 Am. Dec. 672;. Buckley v. Beardslee, 5 N. J. Law, 572, 8 Am. Dec. 620; Gregory v. Logan, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 112; Ellison v. Water Co., 12 Cal. 542; Hargroves v. Cooke, 15 Ga. 321. It is sufficient if the consideration can be gathered from the entire contract. The words "value received" have been held enough. Watson's Ex'rs v. McLaren, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 557; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Baker, 34 Minn. 307, 25 N. W. 606, 57 Am. Rep. 55; Edelin v. Gough, 5 Gill (Md.) 103; Emerson v. C. Aultman & Co., 69 Md. 125, 14 Atl. 671; Smith v. Northrup, 80 Hun, 65, 29 N. Y. Supp. 851. The presence of a seal has been held a sufficient recital of the consideration. Johnston v. Wadsworth, 24 Or. 494, 34 Pac. 13; Smith v. Northrirp, supra. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 108; Cent. Dig. §§ 214-221.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 158
 § 375
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 108