Wills v. Kempt
17 Cal. 98
Cal.1860Check TreatmentField, 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.