ways of making promises binding, and unless the promisor fulfils the requisites of one or the other of these two ways his promise will not be binding. The first of these ways relates to the form in which the promise is made; the second relates to the substance of the transaction, irrespective of the form. The way to make a promise binding by virtue of its form is to put it in writing and attach a seal to the writing. It is often thought that written promises are binding in any event, or that a promise that is not written is not binding in any event. Neither of these propositions, however, is true. A promise is not binding merely because it is in writing; it is necessary that something more shall be done. Not only must it be written, but a seal must be attached in order to make the promise binding by virtue of its form. Everyone is familiar with the common ending in written contracts—"witness my hand and seal," that is, my signature and seal.

WHAT IS A SEAL?—A seal may be—and was originally—made with sealing wax stamped with a crest, initial or what not. This is still a sufficient seal, but the common kind of seal is simply a wafer attached by mucilage to the writing. Another kind of seal, in use by corporations and notaries especially, consists simply of an impression made on paper without attaching any foreign substance whatever. Any of these methods of sealing a promise is good. In most States a written or printed scroll with the letters "L. S." written or printed within, or the word "Seal" written or printed may also be a seal if so intended. It may seem a ridiculous formality for the law to attach importance to this lapping a wafer and attaching it to the end of a writing. In a way it is ridiculous, but it is desirable to have some method by which a promise may be made binding. One method, as an original question, may be as good as another so long as it is an easy method, and attaching a seal is an easy method, and one which makes it possible to make a promise binding whenever you wish.

CHANGE BY STATUTE OF THE LAW AS TO SEALED CONTRACTS.—There has been in this country a certain hostility to the law of sealed instruments. It has been thought, with reason, that some of the rules governing contracts under seal have by their technicality promoted injustice. This has certainly been true of an old rule that contracts under seal could not be altered or discharged by any agreement not itself under seal. The rule, however, that a seal avoids the necessity of consideration is a desirable rule, since it is important to have some means by which those who so intend may make gratuitous promises binding. It would be better then to abolish undesirable incidents of sealed contracts by statute rather than to destroy totally the legal effect of a seal. However, in many States the distinction between sealed and unsealed contracts is totally abolished. In a number of other States the common-law rule has been changed by the enactment of statutory provisions to the effect that sealed contracts shall be presumed to have been made for a sufficient consideration, but this presumption is only prima facie, and lack of consideration may be affirmatively proved, even in the case of a sealed instrument. And under such statutes unsealed contracts remain as at common law, i. e., the burden of proving consideration rests upon the plaintiff who seeks to enforce such a contract.

REQUISITES OF SIMPLE CONTRACTS.—Sealed contracts are comparatively easy to understand. Simple contracts, which are promises made binding by virtue of their substance rather than their form, though called simple, are more difficult to understand, and more complex. They are also much more common than sealed contracts. A simple contract is a promise, or promises, to which the parties have assented, and for which a price called consideration has been paid. One may promise as much as he wishes, orally or in writing so long as he does not attach a seal to his signature, and then say he does not care to keep his promise, unless he has both been paid for the promise and there has been an assent by the promisor and promisee to the terms of the transaction. Mutual assent and consideration are, then, the requisites of simple contracts.

INTENT TO CONTRACT.—In the law of contracts, intention, as we ordinarily understand that term, plays little part. In fact, the Supreme Court of Connecticut, in the case of Davidson vs. Holden, 55 Conn. 103, said: "It is of no legal significance that the defendants did not intend to be individually liable, or that they did not know or believe that as a matter of law they would be."

It is our overt acts that count in contracts. Or shall we put it this way: In the eyes of the law overt acts manifest legal intention. A says to B: "I will sell you my watch for $25, and you may have until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to decide." A meets B the next noon and says to him: "I am sorry you did not take the watch. It was a bargain." B replies: "Here is the price, I will take it. I intended to call you this morning but have been so busy I did not have an opportunity to do so. I told my wife last night I was going to accept your offer and I can produce five witnesses who were in the room and heard me say so." It is, nevertheless, no contract, for, as has been said, quoting from an old English case, "It is trite learning, that the thought of man is not tryable, for the devil himself knows not the thought of man." Occasionally there may be the overt act and still no contract, although the mere formalities of contract may have taken place. The facts in the case of McClurg v. Terry, 21 New Jersey Equity 225, were as follows: The plaintiff was an infant nineteen years of age, and had returned late in the evening to Jersey City, from an excursion, with the defendant and a number of young friends, among whom was a justice of the peace, and all being in good spirits, excited by the excursion, the plaintiff in jest challenged the defendant to be married to her on the spot; he in the same spirit accepted the challenge, and the justice, at their request, performed the ceremony, they making the proper responses. The ceremony was in the usual and proper form, the justice doubting whether it was in earnest or not. The defendant escorted the plaintiff to her home, and left her there as usual on occasions of such excursions; both acted and treated the matter as if no ceremony had taken place. In deciding the case, the court said: "In this case the evidence is clear that no marriage was intended by either party; that it was a mere jest got up in the exuberance of spirits to amuse the company and themselves. If this is so, there was no marriage." The overt act of the parties manifested no legal intention to be married. Should we change the facts in the following way, the court undoubtedly would have held a valid marriage: If, after the parties had gone through the marriage ceremony, as recited, they went on a two weeks' honeymoon, and on their return lived together as man and wife for a month and then suddenly decided to call the marriage off, on the ground that it was a joke and they did not intend the ceremony to be binding, regardless of what they said as to the transaction, their overt acts would be taken by the court as showing their real legal intention at the time the ceremony was entered into. One more illustration: When leaving the class tonight, there is a sudden downpour of rain, and the instructor remarks: "I will give ten dollars for an umbrella." A student offers an umbrella and claims the money. Here is an overt act, but a reasonable person would not take the words used literally. Generally speaking, agreements made jokingly and social agreements confer no contractual rights.

OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE.—The usual way that mutual assent is