Winters v. Rush

Decided July 1, 1867

California Supreme Court · decided 1867-07-01

The following is a copy of the instrument on which the suit was brought : “ $1,150. “Suisun City, Cal., December 25th, 1865. “ Twelve months after date I promise to pay W. M. Winters, or any authoi’ized agent of the Pacific Methodist College, the sum of eleven hundred and fifty dollars for the ■' endówmé2Ít -of said College; the above sum to draw interest from date at fifteen per cent per annum. ■ A “ 11.

Relies on Considerant v. . Brisbane

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1941

10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Sanderson, J. :

¶1The action was properly brought in the name of Winters. The note is payable to him for the- benefit of the Pacific Methodist College. Winters is therefore the trustee of an express trust within the meaning of the sixth section of the Practice Act, and as such entitled to sue upon the note. (Considerant v. Brisbane, 22 N. Y. 389.)

¶2A promissory note imports a consideration, and therefore it. is not necessary that a consideration should he specially alleged. If there was no consideration the defendant should have filed an answer setting up a want of it as a defence to the action.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

¶4Mr. Justice Shatter expressed no opinion.