Mahoney v. Crockett

Citations

• 37 Wash. 252
• 79 P. 933
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 714

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Evidence—Pleading and Proof — Chattel Mortgages — Foreclosure—Defenses. In an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage, a contract tending to show that the plaintiff agreed to pay off the mortgage indebtedness upon the acceptance by him of the title to certain mining property, and other documents having no apparent bearing on the case, are not admissible under an answer alleging that the mortgage was executed to be held in trust by the plaintiff until he should satisfy himself as to the title and rights of a corporation in certain lands, and that the plaintiff had investigated said title and rights, and was satisfied with the same.</p> <p>Same. In such a case, it is not admissible to prove an agreement for an exchange of securities whereby the notes in suit were to be surrendered and the notes of the corporation to be substituted; since the answer wholly fails to show that the agreement to substitute the corporation notes had been carried out.</p> <p>Same — Amendment of Answer. In such a case it is proper to refuse to allow an amendment of the answer (except upon terms), to the effect that by the above specified agreements it was agreed that the notes in suit should be cancelled; since the proposed amendment and documents taken together constituted no defense to the action, in the absence of an allegation that plaintiff accepted the mining properties mentioned therein, or that the substitution of securities mentioned had been carried out. ■</p>