220 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, of the architect purely technical, unreasonable, and possibly the result of undue influ- ence on the part of the defendant, although it does not deem the fact of collusion essential to its decision. Contracts — Consideration — Successive Promises of Same Performance. Held, (i) the promise of a party to a contract to do, or the doing of, that which he is already bound to do, is not a good consideration for the promise of the other party to pay an additional sum ; (2) a rescission of the former contract will not be inferred ex- cept where the party to whom the promise of an additional sum is made, has refused to perform because of difficulties in the way of performance not anticipated by the parties when the original contract was made; the difficulties encountered need not be such as to furnish a legal defence for non-performance. Kingy. Ry. Co,, 63 N. W. Rep. 11 05 (Minn.). The holding on the first point is thoroughly sound. Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn. 396 at 404 contra. On the second point American courts have generally inferred a re ' scission of the original contract, from defendant's act in entering into the second agree- ment. The Minnesota Court refuses to make this inference of a rescission from the mere existence of the second agreement, except in a very narrow class of cases. Not even in this narrow class of cases, as it seems to us, does the defendant's part in making the second agreement indicate that he at any time intended to forego his right to re- quire performance under the original contract. See 8 Harvard Law Review^, 27. Contracts — Partnership — Novation. — A., B. and C. were partners and indebted to plaintiff. A. and B. bought c ut C, and as part of consideration agreed to assume debt to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued A. and B. for this debt, alleging in his declara- tion a request for the money and a refusal. Defendants demurred on ground of no privity of contract. Held, that whi e novation could only exist by consent of all the parties interested, yet plaintiff's assent was sufficiently shown by the alleged demand on the new firm and the institution of suit, which would operate as an estoppel of any claim against the old firm. Tyson v. Somerville, 17 So. Rep. 567 (Fla.). While the question of whether there was a novation or not is properly for the jury, Harris v. Farivell, 15 Beav. 31 ; Backus v, Fobes, 20 N. Y. 204; yet when a new firm assumes the debts of its predecessor, slight circumstances will support the inference of the creditor's assent. Shaw v. McGregory, 105 Mass. 96; Ex parte Williams, Buck. 13. A demand on the new firm, followed by suit therefor, seems abundant evidence of assent, and the above decision quite right. Contracts — Validitv — Consideration. — The plaintiff was under an engage- ment to marry her present husband, when the defendant offered to pay her an annuity, provided the marriage took place within three months. Held, on the authority of Shad- well V. Shadivell, 9 C. B. N. s. 159, that with the satisfaction of the terms of the offer, a valid contract arose. Skeete v. Silberberg, 11 The Times Law Rep. 491 (Q. B. Div., Wills, J.). Although already bound by her engagement to perform a portion of the defendant's proviso, the plaintiff was under no obligation to marry before a reasonable time had elapsed, so that a marriage within three months leaves no difficulty regarding a detri- ment to the plaintiff in this case. Whether that detriment was suffered at the request of the defendant, whether compliance with his proviso is the thing in exchange for which his promise was given, or merely a condition to his gift, is the real point at issue. The truth should be gathered from all the circumstances, benefit to the promisor being well nigh determinative. The English Court, however, passes lightly over such debat- able ground, merely recognizing as stronger than this the case of Shadwell v. Shadivell. Criminal Law — Homicide in Self-Defence — Duty to Retreat. — Held, that in case of felonious assault where assailant is killed, it is error to charge that if prisoner could have retreated safely, he should have done so. Beard v. United States, 15 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 962. See Notes. Criminal Law — Larcency ^ Consent. — One Leech gave the prisoner a ;^ 10 note, both supposing it at the time to be a ;^i note. A substantial period of time after this, the prisoner discovered the mistake and appropriated the whole of the note. Held^ by five judges to four, that the prisoner was not guilty of larceny, as the taking was with the consent of Leach. Re^. v. Hehir, 29 Ir. L. T. 323. See Notes. Criminal Pro^edurk. — Effect of Erroneous Skntence. — Defendant was tried and convicted of a criminal offence, for which the District Court imposed a sen- tence different from that authorized by law. Defendant brought writ of error to the United States Circuit Court, where the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. On objection to District Court's further jurisdiction iu the matter, it was held that the
