Lamberton v. Shannon
| Decision Date | 09 January 1896 |
| Citation | 43 P. 336,13 Wash. 404 |
| Parties | LAMBERTON ET AL. v. SHANNON ET AL. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Thurston county; T. M. Reed, Jr., Judge.
Action by Henry W. Lamberton and another against George D. Shannon and others on a note. Plaintiffs had judgment, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
John P Judson and John C. Kleber, for appellants.
R. B Lehman, B. F. Heuston, and T. W. Hammond, for respondents.
The complaint alleges that the defendants, for valuable consideration, made, executed, and delivered to the plaintiffs a promissory note on the 6th day of March, 1893 whereby they jointly and severally promised to pay to the order of plaintiffs the sum of $2,000; and that said note was signed on its face by the Olympia Light & Power Company, and at the same time, for the purpose of giving credit to said note, as part of the original transaction, and before the delivery thereof, the defendants signed said note by writing their respective names upon the back thereof, waiving demand protest, and notice of nonpayment; alleges the maturity of the note and failure to pay; and demands, for judgment, the amount due, viz. $1,500, with interest and attorneys' fees provided for in the note. The answer admits the first allegation in reference to the corporate capacity of the Olympia Light & Power Company; denies that on March 6, 1893, or at all, either jointly or severally, with one A. Farquhar of the Olympia Light & Power Company, they made the note referred to in the complaint; denies that there was any consideration from the plaintiffs and the payee named in the said note to these defendants, or either of them; denies that ever, jointly or severally, or otherwise, as principals, they promised to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $2,000, or any other sum; and the paragraph ends with these words, "that they deny each and every part, and the whole, of paragraph 2 of the complaint, except as herein expressly admitted, explained, or qualified," and then proceeds to affirmatively set out that, on the 6th day of March, 1893, the Olympia Light & Power Company was indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $2,000, and that it was mutually agreed between plaintiffs, the Olympia Light & Power Company, and these defendants that the Olympia Light & Power Company should make, execute, and deliver to the plaintiffs its promissory note to secure the payment of said sum, and that these defendants should indorse said note as sureties only, and that in pursuance of said agreement the note was executed and indorsed, and that the defendants did not receive any part of the money, but that the Olympia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyoming Construction and Development Co. v. Buffalo Lumber Co.
...122, 41 N.W. 651; State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 52 S.W. 595; Robeman v. Gaiser, 53 Neb. 424, 73 N.W. 923; Lamberton v. Shannon, 13 Wash. 404, 43 P. 336; Mitchell v. Ripley, 5 Kan.App. 818, 49 P. 153.) Inconsistent defenses are permissible. (31 Cyc. 150; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Ca......
-
Ainslie v. Moss
... ... While it is true ... that equivocal pleading is to be avoided, this court and ... others have approved this form of pleading. Lamberton v ... Shannon, 13 Wash. 404, 43 P. 336; Burley v ... German-American Bank, 111 U.S. 216, 4 S.Ct. 341, 28 ... L.Ed. 406; State ... ...
-
Caldwell v. Baxter
... ... Supreme Court of Washington, in discussing an answer very ... similar to the answer in the case at bar, in the case of ... Lamberton et al. v. Shannon et al., 13 Wash. 404, 43 ... P. 336, states in the syllabus as follows: "An answer, ... in an action against defendants as ... ...
-
Caldwell v. Baxter
...The Supreme Court of Washington, in discussing an answer very similar to the answer in the case at bar, in the case of Lamberton v. Shannon, 13 Wash. 404, 43 P. 336, states in the syllabus as follows: "An answer, in an action against defendants as makers of a note, denying that they execute......