Thomas v. Price
Citations
- 33 Wash. 459
- 74 P. 563
- 1903 Wash. LEXIS 541
Syllabus
<p>Pleadings—Amendment—Limitation of Actions—Statute Not Unconscionable Defense—Setting up in Amended Pleading. The statute of limitations' is not an unconscionable defense, and the allowance of an amended pleading for the purpose of setting it up is not to be discriminated against, but should be treated as any other defense.</p> <p>Same. Great latitude is allowed in the amendment of pleadings, and it is not error to allow a trial amendment pleading the statute of limitations to a note, where the defendant was not surprised and made no application for a continuance.</p>
Judges: Dunbar
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
6 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Bigelow v. WalravenMichigan Supreme Court· 1974-09-06· cited 81×
- Cost Management Services, Inc. v. City of LakewoodWashington Supreme Court· 2013-10-10· cited 49×
- Arthur & Co. v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court· 1915-02-01· cited 34×
- Davis v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1905-02-27· cited 24×
- Blalock v. CondonWashington Supreme Court· 1909-02-09· cited 16×
- Cost Mgmt. Servs. v. City of LakewoodWashington Supreme Court· 2013-10-10
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.