Forbearance to exercise a legal right may be good consideration for a promise. Thus, forbearance to sue or to levy on an execution may be a good consideration for a promise to pay even a larger sum of money than could have been collected by legal process at that time. In Smith vs. Algar,17 the first count stated that the plaintiff had obtained judgment against one Elizabeth Mackenzie for a debt of £57 and costs, and for satisfaction thereof had sued out a writ of fieri facias to levy the said debt and costs of the goods of the defendant; that the plaintiff was about to enforce the execution of the said writ, and to levy to the amount of £107 upon goods of the defendant of the value of £200, which the defendant had in his custody ; and that afterwards, in consideration of the premises, and that the plaintiff, at the defendant's instance, would forego executing the writ against the said goods for the recovery of the said sum of £107, defendant undertook to pay plaintiff the last-mentioned sum in seven days then next following; that plaintiff forebore accordingly, but defendant did not pay. The second count stated that the consideration to be, that the plaintiff would forbear executing a writ of fieri facias issued against the goods of the defendant, not saying at whose suit or for what sum. The defendant demurred specially to each count; and there was a rejoinder in demurrer.

Lord Tenterden, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court in the following language: "I agree in the principles laid down in the cases which have been cited, but they do not appear to me to be applicable. It is true the plaintiff might not perhaps have been entitled to recover to the full extent of £107, though, it is to be observed, he might have levied the costs of the execution in addition to the sum given by the judgment. But he had a right at least to levy £60; and if, in consideration of his forbearing that, the defendant promised to pay him the larger sum - if the inconvenience of an execution against these goods at the time in question was so great that the defendant thought proper to buy it off at such an expense - I do not see that the consideration is insufficient for the promise." Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff on the first count.

17 Smith vs. Algar, 1 Barnwall & Adolphus, 603.

If, however, a man forbears, or agrees to forbear from doing what he has no legal right to do, this will not constitute a consideration for any promise.18