
    John G. Elmquist vs. William F. Markoe and another.
    December 10, 1888.
    ^Contract — Pleading Consideration. — If a written contract for the payment of money, which states that it is “for value received,” be set forth in a complaint according to its terms, the recital in the instrument is a sufficient allegation of a consideration. Following Frank v. Irgens, 27 Minn. 43.
    Appeal by defendant Wm. F. Markoe from an order of the district .court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, overruling his demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleged that on October 1, 1883, ■the defendant made and delivered to one Frederick W. Benson his . certain promissory note, set out as follows:
    “ $2,000. St. Paul, Minn., October 1st, 1883.
    “ On or before October 1st, 188o, I promise to pay to Frederick ’ W. Benson, or order, for value received, the sum of two thousand . dollars, with interest from date until paid at the rate of seven (7) per . cent, per annum, interest payable semi-annually. The condition of ■this note is such, and it is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed, that if the said William F. Markoe, the maker of this note, or any , one on his behalf, shall make, or cause to be made, in the buildings . or additions thereto on the real property, the payment of which is • secured by this note, improvements or additions of the value of $2,000, . at or before this note becomes due and payable, then this note will ■not be considered due or payable until October 1st,'1887; otherwise ■ this note shall be due and payable at the time specified in the body . of the note, viz., A. D. 1885. Wh. F. Mareoe. ”
    Then followed averments that defendant Wm. Markoe, for value • received, signed his name on the back of the note before its delivery • to Benson; that after delivery of the note, and before October 1, 1885, Wm. F. made the improvements, etc., provided for in the note, and -that, before the maturity of the note, Benson, for value and in the .regular course of business, indorsed, transferred, and delivered it to ■plaintiff, and that though long overdue, and though payment has been •demanded of both defendants, the note has not been paid.
    
      E. St. thilien Cox and W. S. Cox, for appellant.
    Rogers, Haclley & Selines, for respondent.
   Mitchell, J.

Both parties have argued this case upon the assumption that the question was whether the instrument declared on :is a promissory note. It is wholly immaterial whether it is or is not. .If it is not, it is still a good contract. Upon its face it purports to •have been executed for value received. Whether or not the allega-tion in the pleading that it was executed “for value received” would, • of itself, be a sufficient allegation of a consideration, it is well settled -that if an instrument, purporting on its face to be for value received, be set forth according to its terms, the recital in the instrument is .a sufficient allegation of a consideration. Frank v. Irgens, 27 Minn. 43, (6 N. W. Rep. 380.) See Kean v. Mitchell, 13 Mich. 207, 211. The complaint stated a good cause of action, and the demurrer was -properly overruled.

Order affirmed.

Rote. A motion for reargument of this ease was denied January 3,1889.  