Jamieson & McFarland v. Heim

Citations

• 43 Wash. 153
• 86 P. 165
• 1906 Wash. LEXIS 671

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Harmless Error — Pleadings—Striking — An•swer. The striking of parts of an affirmative defense, is without prejudice, where the trial was before the court without a jury; and as to the only material part of the answer stricken out, the court permitted the parties to fully try out the issue.</p> <p>Corporations — Powers—Dealing in Negotiable Paper — Bills and Notes. A trading corporation has implied power to purchase and indorse bills and notes, in the absence of any prohibition thereof in its aritcles.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Bona Fide Purchasers — Fraud—Inception oe Draet. The fact that the payee of a draft induced its issuance to him by impersonating another person of the same name, and by forging such other person’s name to another instrument, does not invalidate the draft in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, there being no question, under the facts, that the draft was in fact intended for the payee thereof; since fraud in the inception of a draft does not invalidate it in the hands of an innocent holder in due course, who may recover from the drawer under Laws 1899, p. 350.</p> <p>Same — Defenses. Drawers of a draft, issued to a person fraudulently representing himself to be another person of the same name, are not equally innocent with bona fide purchasers of the draft from the fact that they knew the fraudulent payee, when they had no notice of the fraudulent inception of the draft.</p> <p>Same — Evidence—Sufficiency. In an action by purchasers of a draft, procured by the payee by impersonating another of the same name, the evidence is not sufficient to show that the holder had or should have had notice of the fraud, where it appears that the holder had had other transactions with the payee over which no trouble arose, although an officer of the holder admitted, from after-acquired information, knowledge of the unreliability of the payee, and although there were exhibited to the holder the same evidences that had deceived the dr