14. Value arising at any time during the currency of a note § 27. is sufficient: Blake v. Walsh, 29 U. C. Q. B. 541 (1870).

15. A note barred by the Statute of Limitations is a good consideration for a new note: Wright v. Wright, 6 Ont. P. R. 295 (1876).

16. A note payable on demand with interest held to be without consideration as to one of the makers, the note being for an old debt due by the other maker alone: Merchants' Bank v. Robinson: 8 Ont. P. R. 117 (1879).

17. When, after a note is completed, so far as the intention of the parties is concerned, it is signed by a third person, or is so signed by him after maturity, without any consideration moving directly to such third person, or any agreement to extend the time for payment, such third person is not liable thereon: Ryan v. McKerral, 15 O. R. 460 (1888).

18. Notes given to an insurance company for premiums subsequently earned, are given for a valuable consideration and valid: Wood v. Shaw, 3 L. C. J. 169 (1858).

19. A promissory note was given as an indemnity to a party assuming a liability for a third person. Held, that the payee could sue on the note as soon as troubled, and before paying the debt for which he had become liable: Perry v. Milne, 5 L. C. J. 121 (1861).

20. A dying man signed several cheques payable to the order of certain friends, and delivered them to his private secretary for the respective payees as parting gifts. He died before they were presented. Held, that the payees were entitled to payment of the cheques: Colville v. Flanagan, 8 L. C. J. 225 (1864).

21. A note given to a new firm, after the dissolution of the old, in satisfaction of a guarantee given to the old for advances made by them, was held to have been given in error and without consideration, and therefore void: Henault v. Thomas, 1 R. L. 706 (1868).

$ 27.

22. Where a tenant was partly deprived of the use of the premises by works carried on by the corporation of Quebec, but at the end of the year gave his landlord a note for the full amount of the rent, there was sufficient consideration for the note, although the landlord was suing the corporation for damages to the leased premises: Motz v. Holliwell, 1 Q. L. R. 64 (1875).

23. On a sale of the stock of an insolvent made by the assignee, nominally to a third party, who in reality purchased for the insolvent, he accepted in part payment a note of the latter; held, that there was consideration for the note: Lemieux v. Bourassa, 1 Dorion 305 (1881).

24. A promissory note given for consideration erroneously believed to be good in law, is not valid: Riel v. McEwen, Ramsay A. C. 82 (1881).

25. Where a bon, made to represent the value of a share in a business purchased by the plaintiff, was indorsed and transferred to the plaintiff by the vendor, the plaintiff could not sue the vendor on the bon while at the same time he retained the share acquired by him in the business, which was represented by the bon: Cridiford v. Bulmer, M. L. R. 4 Q. B. 293 (1886).

26. A note given for a patent which is not a new and useful invention is void for want of consideration: Almour v. Cable, Ramsay A. C. 87 (1886).

27. Want of consideration being established and there being no evidence of the fact of a gift to bring the case within Colville v. Flanagan, supra, Nc. 20, the note was held void: Molleur v. Roy, 31 L. C. J. 99 (1887).

28. A draft made by B. & Co. through their agent D., given to a bank in payment of another draft by W. on S. in favor of D. (subsequently dishonored by S.) discounted by the bank to pay a note due by reason of a transaction by which B. & Co. never profited, and of which they were ignorant is without consideration, and no action lies against B. & Co.: Union Bank v. Bryant, 17 Q. L. R. 93 (1891).

29. Where a note was given as part payment of a purchase § 27. of land under a verbal agreement of sale, the plaintiff cannot recover for want of consideration: Black v. Gesner, 3 N. S. (Thomson) 157 (1847).

30. Where a note was given on a verbal purchase of land of which the defendant took possession, held to be for a good consideration: Gray v. Whitman, 3 N. S. (Thomson) 157 (1857).

31. A purely moral consideration (affection and regard) does not constitute sufficient consideration for a promissory note: Baker v. Read, 1 N. S. D. 199 (1868).

32. A note was given in part payment of land when the deed was executed by plaintiff and his wife, and delivered; but plaintiff's wife was to go before a J.P. to be examined separate and apart from her husband, which she refused to do. Held, that the delivery of the deed was a good consideration, and parol evidence of an agreement to vary the terms of the note should not have been received: Graham v. Graham, 11 N. S. (2 R. & C.) 265 (1876).

33. C. made an assignment under the Insolvent Act. One of the debts due him was by a woman whom he subsequently married. After her marriage the assignee induced her to give a note, the husband signing as a surety. Held, that there was no consideration for her giving the note: McDaniel v. McMillan, 11 N. S. (2 R. & C.) 405 (1876).

34. A deed of land was made by a father to one of his sons, who, at the father's request, gave his promissory notes payable to the other brothers respectively, the arrangement being for the purpose of distributing the estate of the father without a will. Held, that the payees could not recover on the notes for want of consideration moving from them to the maker: Forsyth v. Forsyth, 13 N. S. (1 R. & G.) 380 (1880).

35. A. who was indebted to plaintiffs, sold defendant a threshing machine, and took his note, which at A.'s request was made payable to plaintiffs. A. sent plaintiffs the note, but they

§ 27. knew nothing of the transaction for which it was given. Held, that they could not recover on the note for want of consideration moving from them to defendant: Cossett v. Cook, 17 N. S. (5 R. & G.) 84 (1884.)

36. Defendant gave his note to the city for arrears of rent on condition of his getting a lease on the same terms as the previous lessee. There was no power to lease except by auction. Held, that the defendant was not liable on the note: City of Fredericton v. Lucas, 8 N. B. (3 Allen) 583 (1857).

37. A note given to a brother of a deceased intestate by the person who received the estate, on the ground that if the deceased had left a will, he would have left his brother the amount of the note, is void for want of consideration: McCarroll v. Reardon, 9 N. B. (4 Allen) 261 (1859).

38. A note given by A. to his son-in-law B. by way of advancement to B.'s wife, held void for want of consideration : Thomas v. McLeod, 12 N. B. (1 Han.) 588 (1869).

39. A note was given by a son in payment of his father': debt. Held, that it was invalid for want of consideration: Street v. Quinton, 18 N. B. 567 (1879).

40. Where a note was given to an infant, nine years of age, affection for the child and gratitude were held not sufficient consideration to bind the estate of the maker in favor of the payees: Holliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C. 501 (1826). See Fuller v. Lumbert, 78 Me. 325 (1886).

41. Cross acceptances for mutual accommodation are respectively considerations for each other: Cowley v. Dunlop, 7 T. R. 565 (1798); Newman v. Frost, 52 N. Y. 424 (1873).

42. A note for the price of land may be binding on the maker, although the contract is not binding on account of the Statute of Frauds: Jones v. Jones, 6 M. & W. 84 (1840).

43. A debt represented to be due, but not really due, is not a sufficient consideration: Southall v. Rigg, 11 C. B. 481 (1851); nor is the giving up of a void note: Coward v. Hughes, 1 K. & J. 443 (1855).

44. A promise to give up a bill thought to be invalid is a § 27. sufficient consideration: Smith v. Smith, 13 C. B. N. S. 418 (1863); as is also a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations : Latouche v. Latouche, 3 H. & C. at p. 576 (1865); Giddings v. Giddings, 51 Vt. 227 (1878). So is the bona fide compromise of a disputed claim, although it afterwards appears that the claim was wholly unfounded: Callisher v. Bischoffsheim, L. R. 5 Q. B. 449 (1870).

45. The voluntary gift of a sum of money is not a valid consideration: Hill v. Wilson, L. R. 8 Ch. at p. 894 (1873).

46. An agreement to pay a debt within three years is no consideration for giving a note payable on demand: Slott v. Fairlamb, 52 L. J. Q. B. 420, per Denman, J. (1883).

47. Actual forbearance from suing a third party is a good consideration for a note, although there was no contract to forbear: Crears v. Hunter, 19 Q. B. D. 341 (1887).

48. The manager of a bank stole certain securities which he negotiated. He subsequently obtained them from the purchasers by fraud and returned them to the bank. Held, that the bank was a holder for value: London and County Bank v. London and River Plate Bank, 21 Q. B. D. 535 (1888).

49. A promissory note given for a mere moral obligation is not binding, but where the maker had made payments thereon, and afterwards became lunatic, the Court recognized it as a debt of honour to be paid out of the estate in re Whitaker, 42 Ch. D. 119 (1889).

50. Where a promise to pay £200 was supposed to be enforceable, though not in fact so, a promissory note given to postpone payment of such sum was given for a good consideration : Kingsford v. Oxenden, 7 T. L. R. 13 (1890).

51. The accomplishment of the objects of an educational institution held to be sufficient consideration for a note: Wesleyan Seminary v. Fisher, 4 Mich. 515 (1857); Roche v. Roanoke Seminary, 56 Ind. 198 (1877).