terms reflecting the character and procedure of our own courts. The frequent, and often exhaustive discussion of English authorities in the cases selected, as well as in the leading treatises, removes all danger of losing sight of the fountain sources of our law. Subjects commonly treated at length in related courses -as the Statute of Frauds, capacity of parties, and interpretation of contract-have been much abridged, the object being to indicate the trend of judicial decision without attempting to develop details or refinements. Compression at these points has permitted a fuller illustration of difficult or disputed topics, and the addition of some special topics not indicated by Anson, as substantial performance, joint obligations, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. The subject of agency has been omitted altogether. Notes have, been added where it seemed impracticable to develop a subject fully by the use of cases. In many of the cases it has been thought advisable, for the sake of brevity, to rewrite or abridge the statement of facts, and this has been done without calling special attention to the matter. Portions of opinions on points irrelevant to the subject iliustrated are often omitted, but such omissions are clearly indicated. Every citation in the opinions has been verified, and corrections made where the original is manifestly wrong. It is hoped that the addition of a full index may render the volume of service to practitioners as well as students. E. W. H. E. H. W. OCTOBER, 1894. Pratt v. Trustees, 93 Ill. 475..... b. Lapse by failure to accept in prescribed manner. c. Lapse by expiration of time. Maclay v. Harvey, 90 Ill. 525 Minnesota Oil Co. v. Collier &c. Co., 4 Dillon, 431.. McMillan v. Ames, 33 Minn. 257. d. Must revocation be communicated? Coleman v. Applegarth, 68 Md. 21 7. Offer made to unascertained persons. Fitch v. Snedaker, 38 N. Y. 248..... Dawkins v. Sappington, 26 Ind. 199. Moulton v. Kershaw, 59 Wis. 316. 8. Offer must contemplate legal relations. Sherman v. Kitsmiller, 17 S. & R. 45.... 9. Acceptance must be absolute. Minneapolis &c. R. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U. S. 149 ..... Aller v. Aller, 40 N. J. L. 446...... Gorham's Adm'r v. Meacham's Adm'r, 63 Vt. 231... 73, 157 3. Statute of Frauds - continued. (ii) Provisions of fourth section. Bellows v. Sowles, 57 Vt. 164. May v. Williams, 61 Miss. 125. Peters v. Westborough, 19 Pick. 364. . (iii.) Provisions of seventeenth section. Northern v. State, 1 Ind. 113...... Hirth v. Graham, 50 Ohio St. 57 Goddard v. Binney, 115 Mass. 450.. Greenwood v. Law, 55 N. J. L. 168. (i.) Necessity of Consideration. Cook v. Bradley, 7 Conn. 57...... (ii.) Adequacy of consideration. Schnell v. Nell, 17 Ind. 29..... Devecmon v. Shaw, 69 Md. 199. Three tests of reality of consideration. Fink v. Cox, 18 Johns. 145 a. Did the promisee suffer any detriment? 150 Cases under Part III. Ch. I. § 2. 420 c. Was the detriment more than the promisee was legally bound to suffer? (8) Performance of public duty. Smith v. Whildin, 10 Pa. St. 39.. (7) Promise to perform existing contract. Coyner v. Lynde, 10 Ind. 282..... Endriss v. Belle Isle Ice Co., 49 Mich. 279..... Lingenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co., 103 Mo. 578.. Johnson's Adm'r v. Sellers' Adm'r, 33 Ala. 265 ... |