Gibbens v. Nipp

Citations

• 80 Wash. 332
• 141 P. 689
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1301

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Record—Affidavits. In the absence from the record of affidavits used against an application to dismiss an action for want of diligence in prosecution, the supreme court cannot say there was an abuse of discretion in overruling the motion.</p> <p>Actions—Prosecution—Diligence—Presumption. The presumption from long delay of want of diligence in the prosecution of an action may be overcome by showing a reasonable excuse.</p> <p>Bills and Notes—Holder in Due Course—Evidence—Sufficiency. That plaintiff was the holder of notes in due course is established without substantial dispute, where her testimony was that she paid full value, on purchasing the notes as an investment, upon recommendation of a third party and knowledge of the financial standing of the maker, the only evidence of prior notice being a brief indefinite conversation with a stranger of a general nature without reference to the notes, before plaintiff contemplated purchasing them.</p>