Bergman v. London & Lancashire Fire Insurance

Citations

• 34 Wash. 398
• 75 P. 989
• 1904 Wash. LEXIS 365

Syllabus

<p>Pleadings — Amendments—Settlement—Denial of Payment in Full not Inconsistent With Allegation or Payment Under Duress. Where an answer sets up a payment of $500 in full settlement of an insurance loss, a reply presenting a plain statement of facts to the effect that the payment was made under duress, denying that it was accepted as a compromise or in any way except on account, is not inconsistent with a general denial of the allegations in the answer respecting the settlement, and no prejudice is sustained by allowing a verbal amendment at the trial adding such general denial to the reply.</p> <p>Trial — Re-oeening Case Ajtter Close of Testimony — Discretion. It Is not reversible error to re-open the case after defendant had closed, for the purpose of allowing plaintiff to introduce further evidence, where no abuse of discretion is shown, and the defendant was allowed, and availed itself of, the same privilege.</p>