Hudson v. Seeley Specialties Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Whittell v. Pinney

    28 Cal.App.2d 354 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938)

    It has been held under similar circumstances that such transactions furnish adequate consideration for a promise to pay money. ( Vickrey v. Maier, 164 Cal. 384 [ 129 P. 273]; Fites v. Marsh, 171 Cal. 487 [ 153 P. 926]; Parker v. Beach, 176 Cal. 172 [ 167 P. 871]; Howard v. Galbraith, 13 Cal.App. 373 [ 109 P. 889]; Hudson v. Seeley Specialties Co., 19 Cal.App. 213 [ 124 P. 1051]; McCampbell v. Obear, 27 Cal.App. 97 [ 148 P. 942].) [2] It is not necessary that the payer shall be benefited by the transaction in order to constitute a valid consideration. It is sufficient if the payee suffers prejudice thereby.

  2. Barnard State Bank v. Lankford

    11 S.W.2d 1084 (Mo. Ct. App. 1928)   Cited 5 times

    The cases relied upon by plaintiff are not in point. In the case of Myers-Shepley Co. v. Elevator Co., 124 P. 1051 (Wash.), the mortgage described the property as "all the undivided two-thirds interest in and to the wheat grown, sown or raised" on the property therein described, and the mortgage was held sufficient on account of the existence of a statute of the State of Washington concerning chattel mortgages on crops, and the Pennington case, that we have cited, supra, upon the point now under discussion, was distinguished on account of the existence of the Washington statute. We have no such statute.