Wills v. Kempt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Ninth District. The complaint avers that in 1858, plaintiff and defendants Kempt and Manseau entered into an agreement, which is under seal and set out in hcec verba.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Ninth District. The complaint avers that in 1858, plaintiff and defendants Kempt and Manseau entered into an agreement, which is under seal and set out in hcec verba. This agreement was to the effect: that, whereas Kempt and Manseau held a mortgage upon certain property, executed by one Walsh, now insolvent, in 1855, and plaintiff held a mortgage upon the same property, given by Walsh in 1856, and one Hughes and Shurtliff also each held like mortgages, which were prior to that of plaintiff, but subsequent to that of Kempt and Manseau; plaintiff undertook to foreclose his…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. concurring.
The objection that the complaint does not show a sufficient consideration for the agreement is not well taken. The agreement is under seal, and it is unnecessary thEit the consideration should have been expressed. The law imports a consideration from the seal, and no averment upon the subject was required. (See McCarty v. Beach, 10 Cal. 461.)
The demurrer was properly overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCarty v. BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lambert v. HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Anderson v. Rucker Bros.Washington Supreme Court · 1919
- Northern Kansas Town Co. v. OswaldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877