Roberts v. Center

Citations

• 26 Wash. 435
• 67 P. 151
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 665

Syllabus

<p>UNLAWFUL DETAINER-EVIDENCE-ABSTRACT OF TITLE-ADMISSIBILITY.</p> <p>The fact that Bal. Code, § 5150, requires plaintiff in an action of unlawful detainer to incorporate an abstract of title in his complaint would not make a certified abstract admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving title, since Id., § 6046, does not permit public records to be proved by the certificate of any other person than the officer having such record in his possession.</p> <p>SAME PLEADING ADMISSIONS ■ — ■ FAILURE TO DENT ABSTRACT.</p> <p>The failure of defendant in an action of unlawful detainer to deny the paragraph of the complaint setting up an abstract of plaintiff’s title is not an admission of its truth, where the answer denies plaintiff’s title or right to possession, since such answer necessarily denies the abstract, which merely shows the chain of title under which plaintiff claims.</p> <p>SAME-CONFESSION AND AVOIDANCE-BURDEN OF PROOF.</p> <p>In an action of unlawful detainer where the gist of the pleadings is an assertion of title in plaintiff and an answer of title in the United States, with the defendant in possession as a homesteader, the admission by defendant, that a patent had been issued by the United States to plaintiff’s grantor, but that said patent was null and void, would not -constitute a plea of confession and avoidance and throw the burden of proof on defendant, since the effect of such answer is merely a denial of plaintiff’s title.</p>