Winters v. Rush
W. M. WINTERS, Agent of the Pacific Methodist College v. HIRAM RUSH
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Silas S. Sanderson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sanderson
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.
Cited by
- California Standard Finance Corp. v. J. D. Millar Realty Co. Docket No. 4309. · 1931-11-05
- Fierce v. Reed Docket No. 4127. · 1930-06-25
- Rivera v. Cappa Civ. No. 1721. · 1916-01-28
- Yellow Jacket Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Holbrook Civ. No. 1218. · 1914-06-03
- Pastene v. Pardini S.F. No. 2364. · 1902-01-29
- West v. Crawford No. 12894 · 1889-07-22
- Williams v. Hall No. 13028 · 1889-07-04
- Marsh v. Dooley No. 5432 · 1877-07-01