TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hemrich v. Wist

A. Hemrich v. Katherine Wist

Hemrich v. Wist, 53 P. 710 (Wash. 1898)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 20, 1898
Docket
No. 2869
Citations
53 P. 71019 Wash. 5161898 Wash. LEXIS 418
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
PROMISSORY NOTES — VARIATION BY PAROL — WIFE’S PERSONAL LIABILITY. In an action against a wife upon a joint and several note executed by herself and husband, an answer alleging a parol agreement that she was not to be held personally liable thereon, but. had only signed it as a member of the community, does not constitute a defense.
Summary
Appeal from Superior Court, King County. — Hon. E.. D. Benson, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This was an action upon a promissory-note, joint and several, executed by Phillip Wist and Katharine Wist, husband and wife. The husband died *517 and an administrator of Ms and the commumty estate was appointed. The claim upon the note was presented to the administrator and payment was refused in consequence of its not having been presented within the time prescribed by the statute. A mortgage had also been given by said parties to secure the note. This action was thereafter brought against the wife upon the note; the answer set up the foregoing facts and alleged a parol understanding to the effect that she was not to be held personally liable thereon, but had only signed it as a member of the community. A demurrer to this answer was sustained and the appeal is therefrom. We are of the opimon that the demurrer was properly sustained. A defense of that Mnd should not be allowed to contradict the terms of the written instrument. No fraud was alleged as against the appellant in inducing her to sign the note, and we are of the opinion that her separate property became liable upon the contract. This has in effect been settled by prior decisions of this court. The respondent has asked for damages on the ground that the appeal was without merit and taken for the purpose of delay, but, being of the opimon that the appeal was prosecuted in good faith, this claim is denied.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1898: 11908: 11914: 11924: 11931: 118982026peak 1898 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Anderson v. Mitchell98 P. 751 (Wash. 1908)
  2. First Methodist Episcopal Church v. Soden229 P. 534 (Wash. 1924)
  3. Northern Bank & Trust Co. v. Graves140 P. 328 (Wash. 1914)
  4. Legal Adjustment Bureau v. West Coast Construction Co.298 P. 429 (Wash. 1931)
  5. Gottstein v. Wist54 P. 1135 (Wash. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Legal Adjustment Bureau v. West Coast Construction Co.298 P. 429 (Wash. 1931)
  2. First Methodist Episcopal Church v. Soden229 P. 534 (Wash. 1924)
  3. Northern Bank & Trust Co. v. Graves140 P. 328 (Wash. 1914)
  4. Anderson v. Mitchell98 P. 751 (Wash. 1908)
  5. Gottstein v. Wist54 P. 1135 (Wash. 1898)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list