Baker-Boyer Nat. Bank v. Hughson

• Decision Date: 22 October 1892
• Citation: 5 Wash. 100,31 P. 423
• Parties: BAKER-BOYER NAT. BANK v. HUGHSON ET AL.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

31 P. 423

5 Wash. 100

BAKER-BOYER NAT. BANK v. HUGHSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 22, 1892

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; JAMES Z. MOORE, Judge.

Suit on a note by the Baker-Boyer National Bank against Walter Hughson and John R. Reavis. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jesse Arthur, for appellants.

McBroom & McBroom, for respondent.

HOYT J.

This action was brought to recover the amount alleged to be due upon a certain promissory note given by defendants to one Culver, and by him indorsed to plaintiff. The answer admitted the execution of said note, but set up by way of defense certain allegations relied upon by defendants to show that the note was given without consideration, and void in the hands of the payee, and that certain officers of plaintiff were so connected with the transaction in which the note was given as to charge them with knowledge of such want of consideration. The plaintiff, upon the pleadings so made, moved for judgment in its favor, and excepted to the action of the court in denying such motion. The first question presented to us for consideration is as to the correctness of this ruling. Two things are alleged in the answer to show want of consideration for the note: First. That the contract for a deed for the real estate which was to be conveyed to the defendants, for the part payment of which said note was given, was not acknowledged, and was therefore void. Under the decisions of this court this objection is without force, as we have held in several cases that a contract for the conveyance of real estate was entirely valid without any acknowledgment. See Langert v. Ross, 1 Wash St. 250, 24 P. 443; Vail v. Tillman, 2 Wash St. 476, 27 P. 76. The other fact relied upon to show want of consideration was misrepresentation as to the land contracted to be conveyed. The only direct allegation as to that is that it was falsely and fraudulently represented that said real estate was situated in a desirable part of the city of Anacortes, and was of great value. It is nowhere directly alleged wherein these representations were false. It is simply alleged that they were false and fraudulent, and that by reason thereof defendants were induced to execute and deliver the note. These are the only allegations in the answer tending to show any want of consideration. The first, as we have seen, is without force and, in our opinion, the second is equally so. The allegation is, at most, simply the expression of an opinion. As to what was or was not a desirable part of the city of...