Case Name: Jonadab Gains against James S. Kendrick
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jonadab Gains against James S. Kendrick.
Judges: GrimJcé, Coleock, JYott, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
Jonadab Gains against James S. Kendrick.
--:— A promissory exchange,ferany moire^camiothS dif/the Ete,ns
n is a general rule, that in acsi?”3a0c0SSa«“and8proved! {“n£ivfromissory notes and bills of «cebade form an exception.
This was an action of assumpsit on a note given 1 ~ by the defendant to the plaintiff in the following words: “ On or before the first day of March next I promise to pay untó Jonadab Gains ninety-four gallons of whiskey, for value received.” The plaintiff" declared, as on a promissory note, under the statute, (3 and 4 Ann, Ch. 9.) The defendant demurred generally, and the plaintiff*joined in demurrer.
The case was brought before Mr. Justice Bay, at Lawrence, in the Fall Term of 1815, who overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff This is a motion to reverse that decision.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Cheves.
It is a general rule of pleading, that in actions ° > ® of assumpsit, a consideration must be stated and proved. (1 Selwyn, 53.) This rule of pleading is founded on the principle of law, that a pro- * , ♦ -i ,* • • ¶ . /» mise without consideration gives no right oí action; consequently, if the pleadings allege a promise, without averring a consideration, they state a case which gives no action, and can authorize no judgment. In parol contracts the law will not imply a consideration; in such a case judgment must be given for the defendant on do* murrer, and after verdict judgment will be arrested. To this rule there is one exception, the ease of promissory notes and bills of exchange; but these must always be. for the payment of money only. In the case before us, the declaration clearly cannot be sustained as a declaration on a promissory note within the staiuie; the note is not for the payment of money. It might be a question, on which, however, I give no opinion, whether, if there were an averment of consideration in the declaration, the words " value received" would not afford sufficient proof of the consideration, and whether so much of the declaration as pleads the statute specially, might not be regarded as surplusage. But it is, in my opinion, decisive of the question, that there is no averment of consideration. The declaration does indeed contain the words " value received," but they occur only in the recital of the note, and can neither in form nor substance constitute this essential part of the plaintiff's pleadings. The judgment of the District Court must therefore be reversed.
GrimJcé, Coleock, JYott, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.