Source: https://chestofbooks.com/real-estate/Real-Property-Interests-Law/Sec-438-Consideration.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 21:54:34+00:00

Document:
A conveyance is not, properly speaking, a contract, though it is usually the result of agreement, and a consideration is consequently not necessary to its validity, except when the conveyance is one operating under the Statute of Uses.64 In other words, the owner of land has the same right to make a gift thereof to another person as he has to sell it, and the only persons who can question the validity of the conveyance for want of consideration are creditors who may thereby lose the means of satisfying their demands.65 The absence of consideration may also deprive the grantee of the right to claim the position of a purchaser for value as against the adverse rights of third persons,66 as well as of the right to ask a reformation of the conveyance on account of mistake.67 In some states, by reason of a statute abolishing private seals, or changing their effect, the fact that the con63 At. 965; Blair v. Muse, 83 Va. 238, 2 S. E. 31.
64. 1 Sanders, Uses & Trusts 67, 4 Kent. Comm. 462; Mckee v. West, 141 Ala. 531, 109 Am. St. Rep. 54, 37 So. 740; Kline v. Kline, 14 Ariz, 369, 128 Pac. 805; Tillaux v. Tillaux, 115 Cal. 663, 47 Pac. 691; Campbell v. Whitson, 68 111. 240, 18 Am. Rep. 553; Thompson v. Thompson, 9 Ind. 323, 68 Am. Dec. 638; Conway v. Rock, 139 Iowa, 162, 117 N. W. 273; Hanson v. Buckner's Exc'r. 4 Dana (Ky.) 251, 29 Am. Dec. 401; Laboree v. Carleton, 53 Me. 211; Goodwin v. White, 59 Md. 503; Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray (Mass.) 447; Gale v Gould, 40 Mich. 515; Burnett v. Smith, 93 Miss. 566, 47 So. 117; Masterson v. Sheahan - Mo. - 186 S. W. 524; Campbell v. Tompkins, 32 N. J. Eq. 170; Mosely v. Mosely, 87 N.
Car. 69; Howard v. Turner, 125 N. Car. 107, 34 S. E. 229; Carna-gia v. Diven, 31 Oreg. 366, 49 Pac. 891; Kelly's Appeal, 108 Pa. 29; Brown v. Brown, 44 S. C. 378, 22 S. E. 412; Bernardy v. Colonial & U. S. Mtge. Co., 17 S. Dak. 637, 106 Am. St. Rep. 791, 98 N. W. 166; Battle v. Claiborne, 133 Tenn. 286, 180 S. W. 584.
67. Enos v. Stewart, 138 Cal. 112, 70 Pac. 1005; Strayer v. Dickerson, 205 111. 257, 68 N. E. 767; St. Clair v. Marquell, 161 Ind. 56, 67 N. E. 693; Shears v. Westover, 110 Mich. 505, 68 N. W. 266; Powell v. Morisey, 98 N. Car. 426, 2 Am. St. Rep. 343, 4 S. E. 185; Hout v. Hout, 20 Ohio St. 119; Burgson v. Jacobson, 124 Wis. 295, 102 N. W. 563.
Although there can be not the slightest question that a conveyance is ordinarily valid without any consideration, expressions are to be found in judicial opinions in this regard which may tend to mislead. For instance, in upholdng a conveyance, the courts oc-casonally refer to the consideration as being sufficient,69 and not infrequently it is stated that love and affection constitute a sufficient consideration.70 And likewise, the statement that the seal on the conveyance imports a consideration is calculated to imply that a consideration is, apart from the seal, necessary to a conveyance.71 But there are few, if any, actual decisions, that a conveyance, not operating under the Statute of Uses, is invalid as against the grantor or his heirs, by reason of lack of consideration.
68. See Wilbur v. Warren, 104 N. Y 192, 10 N E. 263.
69. See e. g. Barnes v. Multnomah County, 145 Fed. 695; Steen v. Steen, 169 Iowa, 264, 151 N. W. 115; Bissell v. Taylor, 41 Mich. 702, 3 N. W. 194; Anderson v. Baines, 156 Mo. 664, 57 S. W. 726; Boyd v. Lloyd, 86 Ark. 169, 110 S. W. 596; Jones v. Gatliff - (Ky.) - 113 S .W. 436; Ames v Moore, 54 Ore. 274, 101 Pac. 769.
70. See e. g. Conley v. Nailor, 118 U. S. 127, 30 L. Ed. 112; Oliphant v. Liversidge, 142 111. 160, 30 N. E. 334; Studybaker v. Cofield, 159 Mo. 590, 61 S. W. 246; Loeschlgk v. Hatfield, 51 N.
Y. 660. So it has been said that no consideration is necessary for a conveyance to children or grandchildren. Spencer v. Razor, 251 111. 278, 96 N. E. 300. And it has been said that a "good" consideration is sufficient, without stating what is a good consideration. Powers v. Munson 74, Wash. 234, 133 Pac. 453.
71. Rendleman v. Rendleman, 156 111. 568, 41 N. E. 223; Brown v. Brown, 44 S. Car. 378, 22 S. E. 412; Golle v. State Bank of Wilson Creek, 52 Wash. 437, 100 Pac. 984.
72. Feeney v. Howard, 79 Cal. 525, 4 L. R. A. 826, 12 Am. St. Rep. 162, 21 Pac. 984; Meeker v.
Meeker, 16 Conn. 383; Acker v. Priest, 92 Iowa, 610, 61 N. W. 235; Groff v. Rohrer, 35 Md. 327; Gould v. Lynde, 114 Mass. 366; Moore v. Jordan, 65 Miss. 229, 7 Am. St. Rep. 641, 3 So. 737; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 1199.
74. Fisher v. Smith, Moore, 569; Smith v. Lane, 1 Leon. 170; Goad v. Moulton, 67 Cal. 536, 8 Pac. 63; Lowry v. Howard, 35 Ind. 170, 9 Am. Rep. 676; Boynton v. Rees, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 329, 19 Am. Dec. 326; Underwood v. Campbell, 14 N. H. 393; Wood v. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509, 67 Am. Dec. 62; Den d Springs v. Hanks, 27 N. C. 30; Sprague v. Woods, 4 Watts & S. (Pa.) 192; Jackson v. Dillon's Lessee, 2 Overt (Tenn.) 261; Wood v. Beach, 7 Vt. 522.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.