Winters v. Rush

California Supreme Court

Winters v. Rush

34 Cal. 136

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1867

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 34 Cal. 136 (Winters v. Rush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winters v. Rush, 34 Cal. 136 (Cal. 1867).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Sanderson, J. :

The 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.)

A 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shatter expressed no opinion.

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

By the Court, Sanderson, J. :

The 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.)

A 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.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Shatter expressed no opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Cal. 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winters-v-rush-cal-1867.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack