Yakima Valley Bank v. McAllister

Citations

• 37 Wash. 566
• 79 P. 1119
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 770

Syllabus

<p>Bills and Notes — Indorsement—Defenses—Signature Obtained by Trick^Intent of Parties. Tlie maker of a promissory note payable to himself is not liable thereon to a bona fide purchaser for value, where the note was made as the first step in a conditional payment for insurance, under the representation that it could not be negotiated until indorsed upon accepting the policy, and his indorsement was fraudulently secured by a trick whereby his signature to a contract penetrated through the paper on to the back of the note, without his knowledge; since it is not the physical act, but the intention of the parties that consitutes the contract of indorsement, and since the maker was not guilty of any negligent act for which he was responsible to innocent parties.</p> <p>Same — Evidence of Similar Fraud Upon Other Parties. Where insurance solicitors obtained the defendant’s indorsement of a note by a device or trick whereby his signature to a contract penetrated through the paper on to the hack of the note, without his knowledge, evidence is admissible that other parties living in the neighborhood were induced to give similar notes, and their indorsements were secured by the same solicitors, in the same manner, at about the same time, since it is competent to show that the acts complained of were part of a general scheme to perpetrate this kind of a fraud upon the people of that neighborhood.</p> <p>Appeal — Harmless Error — Error in Admission j of Evidence Cured by Instructions. The erroneous admission of evidence is cured by expressly withdrawing from the consideration of the jury the issue upon which it was offered.</p> <p>Bills and Notes — Defenses—Evidence •— Order of Proof— Genuineness of Signatures — Evidence Offered in Rebuttal. In an action upon a promissory note where defendant’s signature is denied, it is not error to exclude expert evidence offered only in rebuttal as to the genuineness of the signature, since the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to esta