Brownell (1862) 37 Barb. 535; Hutchins v. Smith (1865) 46 Barb. 235.

North Carolina.-See Pipkin v. Robinson (1855) 48 N. C. (3 Jones, L.) 152.

Oregon.-Philomath College v. Hartless (1876) 6 Or. 158, 25 Am. Rep. 510.

Texas.-Williams v. Rogan (1883) 59 Tex. 438.

And this, regardless of misrepresentations by the solicitors in procuring the subscriptions, if their names did not appear on the agreement; or of the fact that the promisor did not read over the agreement. Stone v. Prescott Special School Dist. (Ark.) supra.

And it is not necessary that the donee should rely alone on the subscriptions then made; it may proceed in the erection of buildings, relying partly upon subscriptions made, and partly upon subscriptions contemplated in the future. Maine Cent. Institute v. Haskell (Me.) supra.

The incorporation of an educational institution and the letting of a contract for the erection of buildings for it, with the result of incurring large liabilities, constitutes a sufficient consideration for the promise of a subscriber to the fund for establishing a school. Wayne & O. Collegiate Institute v. Smith (1861) 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 576.

And it has been held that the erection of the walls of a building, and the gathering of material with which to complete the same, render valid and enforceable a subscription to a schoolbuilding fund, payable on condition. that the building shall be erected within eighteen months; it is not necessary that the building should be completed within that time. Johnston v. Ewing Female University (1864) 35 Ill. 518.

In Wesleyan Seminary v. Fisher (1857) 4 Mich. 515, where an incorporated institution had, on the strength of subscriptions made for that purpose, erected buildings and established a school, employed teachers, and otherwise expended money and incurred expenses, the court said that, under such circumstances, no

impeachment of the consideration for the subscription, short of illegality or fraud, could be permitted consistently with good faith and sound morality, in an action founded upon the subscriptions; any other rule would work a gross injustice upon the donee, which had incurred expenses and assumed obligations on the faith of it, which would require its fulfilment.

And so, where a religious society, on the strength of subscriptions pledged for the purpose of purchasing certain land and erecting a church edifice and lecture room thereon, has proceeded to purchase land, and has erected the lecture room and laid a foundation for the church on the faith of the said subscriptions, it is too late for one signing the subscription agreement to claim that it is not binding on him. North Ecclesiastical Soc. v. Matson (1869) 36 Conn. 26.

A subscription reciting that, whereas a hospital is about to be erected, "I hereby subscribe $100 for this purpose, and further, as a soldier's memorial, I agree to support three beds therein at $250 each per annum upon the completion of building," becomes binding as to both promises, upon the erection of the building, for "the providing of wards and beds was just as necessary as the building itself, and because part of the subscription was for the furnishing of a hospital is no reason for holding that there was no consideration for that part of the contract." Cottage Hospital v. Merrill (1894) 92 Iowa, 649, 61 N. W. 490.

And where the defendant promised to convey a lot of land to any ecclesiastical or corporate body of Presbyterians for a place of worship, so soon as they should legally organize and erect a suitable building for worship thereon, and thereafter circulated a subscription paper for the purpose of raising funds to build the church, to which he and others subscribed various sums payable to the defendant, which proceeded to build a church, the court in Whitsitt v. Preemption Presby. Church (1884) 110 Ill. 125, held that the defendant's promise to convey the lot to the society when it should become a legal

organization was supported by sufficient consideration, and was not a mere naked promise to make a gift, and could be specifically enforced; and this notwithstanding that the promise was oral, there being sufficient in the way of performance to take the case out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds.

So, the obtaining of subscriptions, for the required amount, the calling in of instalments on those subscriptions, the making of contracts and the erection of an athenæum constitute a sufficient consideration to support a subscription towards its erection. Gittings v. Mayhew (1854) 6 Md. 113. The court there said: "The effect of undertakings of this kind has been considered in many of the courts of this country; they have not been always enforced, but where the actions have failed it has been, generally, on some purely technical ground, and not because such promises were deemed merely gratuitous, and not the subjectmatter of suits at law. In some cases the courts, in furtherance of what they deemed a recognized public policy, have felt themselves warranted in relaxing, to some extent, the rigor of the common law, and have held the subscribers liable, when, perhaps, upon strict principles, there was not a legal consideration for the contract. The maintenance of such institutions is certainly of the highest merit. . . The parties to the plan agreed to pay, when a certain amount should be subscribed, in instalments to be required by the building committee. That amount was subscribed, instalments were called in from time to time by the committee; they made contracts, and under their authority and management, and in reliance upon the good faith of the subscribers, the athenæum was completed. Having, by his signature, authorized others to enter into engagements for the accomplishment of the enterprise, the law requires that he should save them harmless to the extent of his subscription."

In like manner, the following acts with reference to the erection of buildings, performed on the faith of a subscription to the fund indicated,

have been held to constitute sufficient consideration for such subscription:

the taking down of an old church building and the erection of a new one, Toronto Berkeley Street Congregation v. Stevens (1875) 37 U. C. Q. B. 9 (church fund);

-the purchase by a university corporation of land, the building of a college building, employing professors, and keeping up the institution for a number of years, Koch v. Lay (1866) 38 Mo. 147 (college endowment and building funds);

-the repair of college buildings, the erection of other buildings, and the procuring of apparatus and furniture therefor, Ohio Wesleyan Female College v. Higgins (1864) 16 Ohio St. 20 (general aid of college); the purchase of land by the trustees of an educational institution, the erection or improvement of buildings thereon, and the putting of an agent into the field to raise funds for the school, Durrell v. Belding (1894) 9 Ohio C. C. 74, 4 Ohio C. D. 263, 1 Ohio Dec. 184 (general aid of school);

-the incorporation of a college, the purchase of a tract of land, the establishment thereon of a college building, and the maintenance of a school therein, Philomath College v. Hartless (1876) 6 Or. 158, 25 Am. Rep. 510 (college endowment fund);

- the acceptance by a college corporation of a subscription to its building fund, the appointment of a committee to superintend the building operations, and a commencement in fact of the work itself, University of Vermont v. Buell (1829) 2 Vt. 48 (college building fund);

- the acceptance by church trustees of a school building fund subscription, their agreement upon the place for the erection of the building, and their expenditure of even a small amount of money, Williams v. Rogan (1883) 59 Tex. 438 (school building fund);

-the appointment of a building committee and the adoption of resolutions imposing certain duties and obligations upon such committee, involving labor and expense, and the necessity of incurring obligations on behalf

of the church in furtherance of the design of removing the old building and erecting the new, and distinctly requesting and directing the agent of the church to proceed and erect the new building after a proposed plan, Barnes v. Perine (1854) 12 N. Y. 18, affirming (1852) 15 Barb. 249, which affirmed (1850) 9 Barb. 202 (church building fund);

-the incorporation of an academy, the making of contracts for land upon which to build, and taking measures to procure the erection of suitable buildings, Ives v. Sterling (1843) 6 Met. (Mass.) 310 (academy building fund);

the submission of plans to a building committee, and the preparation of specifications for a contractor to examine and bid on, Wilson v. First Presby. Church (1876) 56 Ga. 554 (completion of church building).

See also Y. M. C. A. v. Morrow (1912) 165 Mo. App. 511, 148 S. W. 952; Y. M. C. A. v. Rankin (1916) 22 B. C. 588, 27 D. L. R. 417; Y. M. C. A. v. Wood (1916) 22 B. C. 588, 27 D. L. R. 420.

In Pennsylvania it has been held that where subscriptions are taken for the erection of a schoolhouse, or of a church, and some person agrees to give a certain lot of land upon which the building shall be built, and it is erected thereon with the owner's knowledge and consent, he will be held in equity as a trustee of the title for those participating in the erection of the building, and he, or those claiming through him, will be liable in ejectment. Martin v. M'Cord (1836) 5 Watts (Pa.) 493, 30 Am. Dec. 343; Tyrone Twp. v. Dunkleberger (1847) 6 Pa. 29; Beaver v. Filson (1848) 8 Pa. 327; McLain v. School Directors (1865) 51 Pa. 196.

But simply beginning to provide materials for the rebuilding of an academy, on the faith of a subscription made for the purpose of providing funds with which to rebuild, has been held not sufficient to show that expenses were incurred at the implied request of the subscriber, so as to support an action against him. Bridge

water Academy v. Gilbert (1824) 2 Pick. (Mass.) 579, 13 Am. Dec. 457.

And testimony of the pastor of a church who procured subscriptions to a church building fund that “we would not have begun it if the subscriptions had not been made" does not sufficiently prove that the building of the church was commenced on faith of the defendant's promise; the proof should have risen to the level of showing that the incidental promise moved the church corporation, at least in part, to the prosecution of the contemplated work. Lippincott's Estate (1902) 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 214.

3. Securing additional subscriptions.

Consideration for a subscription to a fund for a charitable, religious, or educational institution may be raised from the expenditure of time, labor, or money in securing additional subscriptions, according to a majority of the court considering the question from this viewpoint; especially, where it may be said that an express or implied request is made to secure additional subscriptions.

Illinois. Kentucky Baptist Education Soc. v. Carter (1874) 72 Ill. 247.

Iowa.-University of Des Moines v. Livingston (1881) 57 Iowa, 307, 42 Am. Rep. 42, 10 N. W. 738, s. c. on second appeal in (1884) 65 Iowa, 202, 21 N. W. 564; Brokaw v. McElroy (1913) 162 Iowa, 288, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 835, 143 N. W. 1087.

Minnesota.-Albert Lea College v. Brown (1903) 88 Minn. 524, 60 L.R.A. 870, 93 N. W. 672.

New York.-Presbyterian Soc. v. Beach (1878) 74 N. Y. 72; Roberts v. Cobb (1886) 103 N. Y. 600, 9 N. E. 500; Keuka College v. Ray (1901) 167 N. Y. 96, 60 N. E. 325 (if done at request); Reformed Protestant Dutch Church v. Hardenbergh (1874) 48 How. Pr. 417; Re Conger (1920) 113 Misc. 129, 184 N. Y. Supp. 74.

North Carolina.-Baptist Female University v. Borden (1903) 132 N. C.

476, 44 S. E. 47, 1007.

Pennsylvania. - Converse's Estate (1913) 240 Pa. 458, 87 Atl. 849.

Vermont.-Eastern States Agri. & dustrial League v. Vail, ante, 845.

See also Troy Conference Academy v. Nelson (1852) 24 Vt. 189.

Washington.-Depauw University v. Ankeny (1917) 97 Wash. 451, 166 Pac. 1148.

Thus, the raising of other subscriptions to an endowment fund on the faith of one made on condition that a certain total amount be raised constitutes a sufficient consideration for that one, within the rule that consideration for a contract may be found in the detriment suffered by the promisee, and the contract may be enforced against the donor's estate, although only a portion of such stipulated amount had been raised in his lifetime. Converse's Estate (1913) 240 Pa. 458, 87 Atl. 849.

So, a promise to pay a sum of money to the board of missions of a denominational church on condition that the board secure other subscriptions for the same cause, payable upon the death of the promisor, is binding upon the estate of the promisor, where it appears that other subscriptions were obtained through agents of the board subsequent to this subscription, that the work of soliciting funds was continuous, and that the expense of such work was being paid by the board. Re Conger (1920) 113 Misc. 129, 184 N. Y. Supp. 74.

In Depauw University v. Ankeny (1917) 97 Wash. 451, 166 Pac. 1148, in answer to the contention that efforts expended in procuring subscriptions to a college endowment fund did not constitute a sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay a subscription, the court said: "Whatever may have been the holding of the earlier cases, the rule supported by modern authority is that a subscription agreement to pay money to a charitable, benevolent, or educational institution is supported by a good consideration, and is, therefore, enforceable if, in reliance upon such agreement, an act has been done, money expended, or obligation incurred." In that case it was held that evidence showing that the subscription in suit, with others of like or greater amount, were exhibited to

prospective subscribers as an argument to induce subscriptions, that the full amount of the proposed fund was in fact subscribed, and that, in addition thereto, and subsequent to the making of the defendant's subscription, an additional sum of money was subscribed and paid to meet the expenses of the campaign, shows that the subscription sued on was relied upon, and that, after it was made, money was expended and obligations incurred.

In Brokaw v. McElroy (1913) 162 Iowa, 288, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 835, 143 N. W. 1087, it was held that consideration for a subscription to a university endowment fund may be found in the fact that, upon the faith of it, other subscriptions were made, and expenditures and obligations incurred by the trustees of the institution. The court said that it would be manifestly unjust to permit the promisor of a contribution to withdraw his promise after it had served the function of inducing other contributors to incur obligations to the same beneficiary, for the same general purpose.

So, where a member of a church, on which there was a mortgage then due, promises at the instance of the pastor, who was endeavoring to secure money to pay off the mortgage, that she would contribute a certain amount if the pastor would secure pledges for the balance, the securing of pledges for the remainder constitutes a valid and sufficient consideration for the member's promise, regardless of whether, in securing the remainder of the subscriptions, the pastor acted on behalf of the church, or on his own behalf, intending to present the money obtained to the church. Roberts v. Cobb (1886) 103 N. Y. 600, 9 N. E. 500.

The supreme court of Illinois has held that time and labor expended in raising additional subscriptions are a good consideration for a subscription to an educational society, made on condition that the society should raise a specified amount from other persons for the same purpose for which the defendant promised his money. Ken

tucky Baptist Education Soc. v. Carter (1874) 72 III 247.

But a later Illinois case has held that labor and time expended in securing subscriptions enough to carry out a proposed charitable project do not constitute a consideration sufficient to support the promises of the subscribers, even though the canvassing was done by one employed at an annual salary by the institution raising the fund, and, until acted upon, such subscriptions may be revoked. Augustine v. Methodist Episcopal Soc. (1898) 79 Ill. App. 452. The distinction apparently lies in the fact that in the Kentucky Baptist Education Society Case the subscription was conditioned on securing a certain amount in additional subscriptions.

In New York the rule that consideration may be found in the fact that additional subscriptions have been secured, with a consequent expenditure of time, labor, and money, is restricted to cases where there is something upon which to base an express or implied request by the promisor of the promisee to secure the additional subscriptions; merely subscribing on condition that a certain amount be secured raises no implied request to secure additional subscriptions to bring it up to that amount (Presbyterian Church v. Cooper (First Presby. Church v. Cooper) (1889) 112 N. Y. 517, 3 L.R.A. 468, 8 Am. St. Rep. 767, 20 N. E. 352); nor does signing a subscription agreement, reciting that the subscribers "hereby bind ourselves to pay the trustees of Hamilton College the sums opposite our respective names," raise an implied request to secure additional subscriptions (Hamilton College v. Stewart (1848) 1 N. Y. 581).

Thus, no consideration for the promise of a signer of a subscription paper, whereby the subscribers agreed with the trustees of a church to pay certain sums for the purpose of paying off a mortgage debt on the church, upon condition that the whole sum be subscribed within one year, can be found in the efforts of the trustees of the church, and the time and labor expended by them, during the year, to

secure subscriptions in order to fulfil the conditions upon which the liability of the subscriber is dependent. Presbyterian Church v. Cooper (N. Y.) supra. The court stated that there was no doubt the labor and services rendered by one party at the request of another would constitute a good consideration for a promise by the latter to the former, based on the rendition of that service, but that the difficulty in the case at bar was that there was no evidence on the face of the subscription paper, or outside of it, that the corporation or its trustees did or undertook to do anything upon the invitation or request of the subscribers; nor was there any evidence that the trustees in fact did anything in their corporate capacity, or otherwise than as individuals interested in promoting the general object in view. The very narrow view expressed here regarding the necessity that there be some evidence of an implied request to do some act or incur some liability other than the mere subscription and the incurring of subsequent liabilities by the promisee is, as noted above, limited to very few jurisdictions; and in New York other cases have held that consideration may be found in the fact that time and money have been expended in securing additional subscriptions. See citations supra.

So, in the reported case (RE GRISWOLD, ante, 858) the court holds that a consideration for a subscription agreement is not established by the fact that the promisee expended large sums of money in procuring the subscriptions, since there was no request, express or implied, by the donor, resulting in such expenditure; it will be observed that the court relied upon Brokaw v. McElroy (1913) 162 Iowa, 288, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 835, 143 N. W. 1087, supra, in support of this conclusion; an examination of the Brokaw Case discloses, however, that money expended in this manner was deemed by that court a good consideration; what that case held was that a consideration could not be raised from the fact that money, labor, or time was expended in procuring the subscription sued on, for it could not be said