
    [Argued October 16;
    decided November 13,1894.]
    WILSON v. WILSON.
    [38 Pac. 189.]
    Bills and Notes—Presumption of Consideration—Code, 3188, 3190.— Where a promissory note is duly executed and delivered, a sufficient consideration therefor will be presumed, though none is expressed.
    Appeal from Douglas: J. C. Fullerton, Judge.
    This in an action in behalf of the estate of Daniel Wilson, deceased, brought by Geo. W. Wilson, as the administrator thereof, by appointment of a probate court in the State of Washington, against the defendant, upon his promissory note, executed on December twenty-third, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, and made payable to the said Daniel Wilson, now deceased, on or before twelve months after date. The defendant, by his answer, denies the execution of said note and his liability thereon, and for a further and separate defense alleges, in substance, that on or about the - day of-, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, the defendant W. C. Wilson, and Daniel Wilson, his father, were stockholders in the Green Mountain Mining Company; that at said time they entered into a partnership agreement whereby they were to take charge of the company’s mine and operate the same as equal partners; that the father was to furnish sufficient money to put the mine in paying condition, and to run the same, and was to look to the partnership venture for his reimbursement; that he expended about twenty-three hundred and eighty dollars in the business, and afterwards withdrew from the partnership, and the son promised to pay him the amount thus expended on condition that he should make it out of the mine; that defendant made and delivered, his note substantially as set forth in the complaint, upon the condition that it was not to take effect, and that defendant was in nowise to be bound by it, until the mine should yield a sufficient amount to pay the same, over and above the expenses incurred in operating it, and that in the mean time the note was to be held merely as a memorandum; that the son has used and is still using all the means in his power to make said mine pay, and has expended a large amount of time, labor, and money thereon, but that it has not paid expenses; and further alleges that there was no consideration for the note. The reply puts in issue the material allegations of the answer.
    Upon the issues thus joined, a trial was had without a jury, and the court, after hearing the evidence, made the following
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    
      “First, that in the year eighteen hundred and eighty - eight, and for some time prior thereto, defendant and one Daniel Wilson were partners in the Green Mountain Mine, in Douglas County, Oregon, and did operate the said mine as such partners. Second, that at or shortly before the time the promissory note was executed, upon which the action in this case is brought, the said Daniel Wilson withdrew from said partnership arrangement, and that thereafter the defendant herein conducted said mining business on his own account, but that there was no formal dissolution of the partnership between said Daniel Wilson and the defendant, and no settlement of the partnership affairs between said parties, other than the execution and delivery to the said Daniel Wilson by the defendant of two promissory notes amounting in the aggregate to twenty-three hundred and eighty dollars, one of which is the note upon which this action is brought. Third, that on the twenty-third day of December, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, the said defendant made, delivered, and executed to the said Daniel Wilson his certain promissory note for the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars, payable on or before twelve months after date, to the order of said Daniel Wilson, with interest from maturity at-per cent, per annum, payable in gold coin at the Douglas County Bank, at Roseburg, Oregon. The said note further provided that in case- suit was instituted to collect the same, that defendant would pay such sum as the court would adjudge reasonable as attorney’s fee in said suit. Fourth, that at the time the said note referred to in the last finding of fact was executed by defendant the defendant was in possession as sole owner of the mine and the mining property mentioned in the first finding of fact herein, under an agreement with the said Daniel Wilson that said Daniel Wilson should have no further interest as a partner with defendant in the operating of said mining property. Fifth, that on the fourteenth day of November, eighteen hundred and ninety, the said Daniel Wilson died in the State of Washington, intestate. Sixth, -that on the ninteenth day of December, eighteen hundred ■and ninety, the plaintiff herein was, by the probate court -of Pacific County, Washington, appointed administrator of the estate of Daniel Wilson, deceased, and plaintiff is now, and has been since the date last aforesaid, acting as administrator of said estate. Seventh, that said promissory note nor any part thereof has been paid, and that the same is now due. Eighth, that one hundred dollars is a reasonable attorney’s fee for bringing said action upon .said promissory note.
    CONCLUSION OP LAW.
    That plaintiff, as administrator of said estate of Daniel Wilson, deceased, is entitled to recover from the defendant, for the use and benefit of said estate, the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, from December twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and the further sum of one hundred dollars as attorney’s fee for bringing said action. Upon motion of plaintiff, judgment was rendered, based upon these findings, in his favor and against defendant for the sum of seven hundred and thirty-five dollars, with interest thereon from August first, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, and the further sum of one hundred dollars attorney’s fee, and the costs and disbursements, and from this judgment the defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Wolverton.

It is claimed by counsel for defendant that the findings of fact do not support the conclusions of law and judgment of the lower court, because, first, the first and second findings of fact show that the note in question was without legal or sufficient consideration; and, second, the third finding of fact does not show that the note sued on was given for value, and, therefore, does not show a consideration for the note. The further objection is made that the action is prosecuted by a foreign administrator, and that he is without authority to sue in the courts of this state. As to the contention of counsel regarding the first and second findings of fact, and that a foreign administrator cannot sue in the courts of this state, the decision of this court in the case of Geo. W. Wilson, administrator, v. W. C. Wilson and Mary Jane Wilson, arising out of the same transaction as the case at bar, and just decided (ante, p. 251), is decisive of both questions adversely to their contention, it being held that the latter question was waived by failing to demur to the complaint.

The first, second, and fourth findings of fact should all be considered together in this connection. The third finding of fact is, in substance, that on the twenty-third day of December, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, the defendant made, executed, and delivered to the said Daniel Wilson his promissory note for the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars, payable to the order of said Daniel Wilson, with interest, etc. This finding shows a valid promissory note' under the statute of this state. It is provided (Hill’s Code, § 3188,) that “all notes in writing made and signed by any person, whereby he shall promise to pay to any other person or his order, or unto the bearer, any sum of money therein mentioned, shall be due and payable as therein expressed, and shall have the same effect, and be negotiable in like manner, as inland bills of exchange, according to the custom of merchants.” Section 3190 further provides that ‘ ‘ the payees and endorsers of every such note payable to them or their orders, and the holders of every such note payable to bearer, may maintain actions for the sums of money therein mentioned, in like manner as in cases of inland bills of exchange, and not otherwise. ” Such an instrument imports a consideration, and will be presumed to have been executed for value received unless the contrary is shown. It is held in Carnwright v. Gray et al. 127 N. Y. 96, 24 Am. St. Rep. 424, 27 N. E. 835, 12 L. R. A. 845, under a statute almost identical with ours, that the words ‘ ‘ value received ” need not appear on the face of the note, as the words express only what the law implies. See also Flint v. Phipps, 16 Or. 448, 19 Pac. 548; Pinney v. King, 21 Minn. 514. The court having found the due exécution and delivery of a promissory note, a sufficient consideration therefore is presumed; and there being no evidence to overcome such presumption, the finding supports the judgment The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Affirmed. 
      Note.—The presumptions applicable to a suit on a negotiable instrument are presented in a note to Commercial Bank v. Burgwyn (N. C.), 17 L. R, A. 326.—Reporter.
     