Warnock v. Itawis

Citations

• 38 Wash. 144
• 80 P. 297
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1135

Syllabus

<p>Bills and Notes—Action Against Indians—Defenses—Exemp, tion of Property. It is no defense to an action upon a promis. sory note that the maner was an Indian and his property exempt.</p> <p>Same—Presumption That Maker Understood Note—Evidence to Overcome—Sufficiency. In an action against an Indian on a promissory note, the evidence is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that he understood the plain terms of the note, where it merely appeared that he could not read or write and understood the language imperfectly, and where he was present and refused to testify, and there was some evidence that he understood the transaction and had made similar obligations.</p> <p>Same—Attorney’s Fees—Reasonableness—Evidence—Judicial Notice. The trial court may take judicial notice that fifty dollars is a reasonable attorney’s fee to be allowed under tbe terms of- a promissory note, and may give judgment therefor without evidence as to tbe reasonableness of tbe fee.</p> <p>Same—Limitation of Actions—Payment to Collector—Tolling Statute. A payment on a promissory note to one with whom it was left for collection will stop tbe running of tbe statute of limitations, being in effect a payment to tbe owner.</p> <p>Interest—Notes—Construction of Terms—Compound Interest. A note providing tbat, if not paid at maturity, tbe interest is to be added as part of tbe principal and all to draw interest at tbe rate of one and one-half per cent per month, does not authorize tbe compounding of interest monthly thereafter at one and one-balf per cent, but tbe sum due at maturity draws simple interest at tbat rate until paid.</p>