Oregon Mortgage Co. v. Estes

Citations

• 20 Wash. 659
• 56 P. 834
• 1899 Wash. LEXIS 221

Syllabus

<p>FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE—DEFENSES—FORGERY—EVIDENCE.</p> <p>A finding by a referee that a mortgage in suit was not a forgery should be upheld, although the alleged mortgagors dispute its genuineness, claiming that they never executed a mortgage to the plaintiff as mortgagee therein, but that a month prior they had executed a mortgage for a like amount to another party, when it appears that the signatures of the mortgagors to the instrument in question are genuine, that the notary before whom it was executed and a witness to the signatures testify that they witnessed its execution, that the instrument which defendants claim to have executed has never been recorded or heard of in any way, that defendants took out a policy of insurance on the premises, making it payable to the plaintiff as mortgagee, and deposited the policy with its agent as collateral security on the mortgage in suit, and that in another action, not connected with this case, but tried about a year and a half after the alleged execution of the mortgage in suit, defendants testified to the existence of a mortgage in favor of plaintiff herein, for an amount corresponding to that in the mortgage now sued on, although defendant now claims that he at no time executed a mortgage in favor of plaintiff.</p>