Bradbury v. Nethercutt

Citations

• 95 Wash. 670
• 164 P. 194
• 1917 Wash. LEXIS 840

Syllabus

<p>Pleading — Amendments. It is not a valid objection to an amended complaint that it contains statements inconsistent with the original complaint, where the object of the two complaints was the same.</p> <p>Pleading — Separate Statement of Causes. It is not prejudicial error to refuse to require a complaint to separately state causes of action for the setting aside of two instruments, where they were both made for a single and continuous purpose to defraud.</p> <p>Limitation of Actions — Quieting Title — Relief on Ground of Fraud. Where the gravamen of an action is to quiet title, even though fraud is practiced in creating the cloud, the action is not subject to the three-year limitation in actions for relief on the ground of fraud.</p> <p>Evidence — Parol Evidence to Vary Writing — Deed as Mortgage. Where a deed absolute on its face was not delivered to the grantee, and was intended as a mortgage, that fact can be proven by parol.</p> <p>Same — Parol Evidence — Alterations in Deed — Forgery. Alterations in a deed, and that it had been forged, can be shown by parol.</p> <p>Alteration of Instruments — Mortgages—Validity. A material' alteration in a deed intended as a mortgage annuls the instrument and prevents proceedings for its foreclosure, even by an innocent assignee.</p>