Scott v. . Jones

Reade, J. Proof of a consideration is not necessary to -entitle a plaintiff to recover upon a bond to pay money. The seal imports a consideration. And, besides, a voluntary bond to pay money is good, even if it be proved that there ■was no consideration. It is only where a plaintiff is obliged to invoke equity to enforce a bond, that it is required of him ¡to show a consideration. But, if it were necessary for the plaintiff to show a consid¡eration, he has shown it ample. He held a bond against *115 the defendant and her deceased husband for $2,500, with a mortgage -on land, supposed to be hers, and which, in fact, became hers upon the death of her-mother; he surrendered that bond and mortgage to the defendant upon her executing the bond sued on. That was the loss to the plaintiff. The gain to the defendant was that she got clear of the •$2,500 and the mortgage on her land, relieved her husband’s estate, of which she was entitled to a wife’s share, and became the creditor of his estate to the.amount of the new bonds which she gave. There is no error. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.