Spahr v. Liebeck

Citations

• 119 Wash. 53
• 204 P. 1049

Syllabus

<p>Pleading (43) — Answer—Inconsistent Defenses — Joinder With General Denial. Assuming, in an action on a promissory note, that the defenses of non est factum, and the statute of limitations are inconsistent, the defendant would not thereby be cut off from all defense, under a general denial, of matters which he cannot be deemed to have admitted.</p> <p>Same (174) — Issues—General Denial. In an action on a promissory note alleged to have been given in payment of interest on a prior note, which allegation was specifically denied, it was admissible, under the general denial, to prove that the money for which the note was given was for a loan which the maker obtained to pay indebtedness to another party.</p>