Gibson v. Feeney

Citations

• 66 Wash. 531
• 120 P. 97
• 1912 Wash. LEXIS 800

Syllabus

<p>Pleading — Answer—Inconsistent Defenses. A general denial of the execution of a note is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense alleging the securing of defendant’s signature by fraud while intoxicated, and want of consideration.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Actions—Answer—Fraud—Sufficiency. An answer states a good defense to an action upon promissory notes, where it alleges that the defendant’s signature was procured by fraud while he was so intoxicated that he did not know what he was doing and that the consideration for which the notes were given never passed.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error. In an action upon a note, error in ruling upon a cross-complaint relating to a second note not yet matured, is harmless where the issues thereon were tried out upon a supplemental complaint and answer after maturity of the second note.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Defenses—Fraud—Estoppel to Assert Defense. Failure to promptly deny liability on notes, procured by fraud while intoxicated, does not estop the defendant from asserting his defense, where he then claimed that he had no recollection of signing the notes.</p>