Opinion op the court by
Affirming.
The appellee, Maria Lakes, instituted this action against the administrator of Bronston, alleging that Bronston ‘ ‘ on the 5th day of May, 1892, executed and delivered to her his promisory note, by which he promised to pay her on the 2d day of August, 1892, the sum of $1,000, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum from date until paid, that no part of said debt or interest had been paid, and that the same was due and owing to her. ’1 She filed with and as a part of her petition the note, reading:-“On the 2d day of August next I promise to pay Maria Lakes one thous- and dollars with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum from this date until paid, for value received. May 5, 1892. T. C. Bronston. ’ ’
The only question presented by the record is whether or not a general demurrer filed by Bronston’s administrator should have been sustained. In support of the proposition that the demurrer should have been sustained, counsel for appellant insist that the petition was fatally defective because it failed to aver the consideration for the execution of the note. The argument of co.uusel is: “ That at the common law, and in the absence of a statute to the contrary, every contract, except contracts under seal, which by law dispenses with the necessity of a consideration, and ne
In this state, prior to the act of 1812 (Laws 1811-12, p, 180, c 375), the distinction between sealed and unsealed instruments of writing was recognized by our court, and it was held in a number of cases to be necessary, in declaring upon what might be termed a simple contract — that is a verbal contract or a contract in writing but not sealed — to aver the consideration for its execution. Thus in Letcher v. Taylor 2 Bibb 585 a common-law action of debt was brought upon an agreement in writing but without a seal. The declaration contained no averment of the consideration upon which the agreement was made. In'ruling that the general demurrer interposed should have been sustained the court said: “The objection to the declaration for want of an averment of the consideration of the agreement is fatal. In a case founded upon a deed or a mercantile instrument as the law in such a case implies a consideration, none is necessary to be stated in the declaration; but in all other cases the consideration, not being implied, must be averred.” To the same effect is Hart v. Coram, 3 Bibb, 26; Beauchamp v. Bosworth, 3 Bibb, 116; Jackson v. Berry, 3 Bibb, 85.
But in 1812 the Legislature enacted: “That all writings hereafter executed, without a seal or seals, stipulating for the payment of money or property, or for the performance of any act or acts, duty or duties, shall be placed upon the same footing with sealed writings, containing the like stipulations; receiving the same consideration in all courts of justice;
And so the consideration of any writing with or without a seal may be impeached or denied by a pleading verified by oath, as authorized by section 472 of
The court properly overruled the demurrer and the judgment is affirmed.