
    Winter v. Geobner.
    Specific Performance — Consideration—Seal—Decision op the Court of Appeals Approved.
    The reasoning and conclusion of the court of appeals in this case (2 Colo. App. 259) are approved. It was held by that court, in substance, that:
    A contract to be specifically enforced must be definite and certain and upon a valuable consideration.
    A promise against a promise is not, in this class of cases, a valuable consideration, nor does a seal import one.
    
      Error to the Court of Appeals.
    
    Mr. J. M. Lomery and Mr. T. E. Watters, for plaintiff-in error.
    
      No appearance for defendant in error.
   Per Curiam.

This case is brought here on a writ of error to a judgment of the court of appeals. The facts upon which the controversy arises are fully stated, and the law applicable thereto ably discussed, in the opinion of the court of appeals in Winter v. Goebner, 2 Colo. App. 259. We fully concur in the reasoning of the learned writer of that opinion, and the conclusion reached. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.  