Ireland v. Scharpenberg

Citations

• 54 Wash. 558
• 103 P. 801
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1033

Syllabus

<p>Bmts and Notes — Fraud—Bona Fide Purchaser — Burden of Proof — Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action upon a note procured by fraud, the burden being upon the plaintiff to show that he is the holder in due course, it is error for the court to decide, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff had no notice of the fraud, where there was no evidence as to the manner, consideration, or time of the purchase of the note, save that of one of the plaintiffs, and one installment of interest was past due at the time; since the credibility of the witness would be for the jury, although he was not contradicted by any direct evidence.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Notice of Dishonor — Default in Interest. Default in the payment of interest is not'notice to a holder in due course of dishonor, but it is competent upon the question of good faith.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Fraud—Bona Fide Purchaser — Evidence—Admissibility. In an action upon a note, upon an issue as to whether the plaintiffs were holders in due course, it being claimed that they were mere figureheads and without interest in the suit, it is error to exclude evidence that $200 had been deposited with the clerlr as security for costs and that the plaintiffs knew nothing about the deposit.</p> <p>Sales — Fraud—Evidence—Admissibility. Upon the defense of fraudulent representations in the sale of a horse, made by the agent of the vendors, printed advertising cards given to the vendees at the time, showing the agent’s name and describing the vendor’s business and the value of its horses, are admissible as part of the representations.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Evidence—Consideration. Upon the defense of fraud in an action upon a note, which had been detached from the written contract in consideration of which the note was given, the defendants are entitled to introduce the contract in evidence as part of the original transaction and to show the consideration for the note.</p>