Court Opinion

ID: 9830917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:37:34.300166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.318284
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[8] Lest some misunderstanding should arise from the language employed relative to the matter of determining the adequacy and character of the consideration upon which this lease is founded, we think it proper to modify some of the expressions used in the original opinion. We do not mean to hold that the consideration must be both valuable and adequate, or that its sufficiency should be measured by the relative value of the property conveyed; nor do we mean to hold that in every case the character and the sufficiency of the consideration should be treated as questions of fact to he passed upon by the jury. We recognize and adhere to the general rule that where the consideration is sufficient to be denominated “valuable” the courts do not concern themselves with the relative value of the properties exchanged. 1 Elliott on Con*1038tracts, §§ 209 and 210. This rule, however, is subject to some exceptions, as where the consideration is so grossly out of proportion to the property conveyed as to shock the conscience or to bear upon its face evidences of fraud. 2 Pbmeroy, § 918. .In saying that we regard the sum of $70 cash as sufficient to make the issue of valuable and adequate consideration one of fact to be passed upon by the jury, we were perhaps more liberal than necessary. That liberality, however, was indulged in because the record showed that in this case either the court or the jury had determined those questions in favor of the ap-pellees. Had the question arisen in a different form, and no issue of fact been determined, we might have treated the matter in a different manner.
The motion for a rehearing is overruled.