ing a consideration in all cases, but the reason is this:
When a sealed contract is made, the law supposes or assumes that each
party made it, clearly knowing its nature--made it carefully, slowly,
and, consequently, that either a consideration had been or would be
given. If, therefore, one of the parties should refuse to fulfil it
the other could sue him in a court of law. The person who sought to
have it carried out would not be obliged to show that he had given any
consideration on his part for the undertaking, because the seal
appended to his name would imply that a consideration had been given.
A deed for a piece of land is a good illustration of a sealed
instrument. The law assumes whenever such a deed is given that the
seller received a consideration for his land. The money paid was a
consideration received by the seller, and the land was the
consideration received by the buyer. Each gives a consideration of
some kind for the consideration received from the other; and this is
true in all cases.

V. THE ESSENTIALS OF A CONTRACT

In our last paper we told our readers that there must be a
_consideration in every contract_. Sometimes this is _illegal_, and
when it is the effect is the same as would be the giving of _no
consideration_.

Suppose a robber having stolen money from a bank should afterward
offer to return a certain portion if he is assured that he will not be
arrested and compelled to change the style of his clothing and his
place of residence for a season. He cannot endure the thought of
missing a game of football; and as for striped clothes, though very
comfortable, perhaps, he is sure they would not be becoming. Suppose
this agreement to return a part should be put in writing, and after
fulfilling it he should be sued by the bank for the remainder, and
also prosecuted by the State for committing the theft. Very naturally
he would present the writing in court to show that he had been
discharged from the crime and also from the payment of any more money.
But this writing would not clear him either from prosecution for the
criminal offence or from liability to return the rest of the money.
The bank would say that although he had returned a part, this was not
a proper consideration for its agreement not to sue him; it had no
right to make such an agreement, and consequently it could sue the
robber for the remainder of the money just as though no agreement had
ever been made.

Another illustration ma