Wills v. Kempt

California Supreme Court

Wills v. Kempt

17 Cal. 98

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1860·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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.

Wills v. Kempt, 17 Cal. 98 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

17 Cal. 98 (Wills v. Kempt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related