Lake v. Steinbach

Citations

• 5 Wash. 659
• 32 P. 767
• 1893 Wash. LEXIS 40

Syllabus

<p>PLEADING —ANSWER—NEW MATTER—LIMITATION OE ACTIONS — NON-RESIDENCE OE DEPENDANT — PRESUMPTION.</p> <p>An answer which states that it “does not deny or admit” the allegations of plaintiff's complaint does not constitute “a general or specific denial,” and is therefore insufficient under Code Proc., § 185.</p> <p>Where an answer does not deny the facts stated in a paragraph of the complaint, but controverts the conclusion drawn by the pleader from the facts stated, the answer does not traverse any material fact.</p> <p>Where the facts stated in the complaint clearly show that more than six years have elapsed since the rendition of the judgment sued on, an answer alleging “that more than six years has elapsed since the cause of said action on said judgment accrued,” does not set up new matter constituting a defense to the action and requiring a reply.</p> <p>An action on a judgment is not barred because not commenced within six years after its rendition, where the complaint alleges, without denial in the answer, that the defendant was out of and absent from the State of Washington at the time said judgment was rendered, and did not come into or return to said state thereafter until less than six years prior to the commencement of the action.</p> <p>The fact that defendant was a non-resident of the state at the time the cause of action against him accrued must be alleged affirmatively as a fact in his answer, in the absence of such averment in the complaint, in order to rebut the presumption of his residence within the state.</p>