TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Adams v. Casey

J. M. Adams v. John T. Casey

Adams v. Casey, 80 P. 853 (Wash. 1905)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Washington Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 8, 1905
Docket
No. 5267
Citations
80 P. 85339 Wash. 371905 Wash. LEXIS 809
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Appeal—Review—Findings Not Excepted to. In an action at law, tried without a jury, findings to which no exceptions are taken must be considered as the facts in the case. Pleading — Answer — Reply to Denial Not Required. In an action upon a promissory note an answer which “denies that there was any consideration . . . but alleges that the same was given for security only,” is no more than a denial requiring no reply.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Ming county, Morris, J., entered February 27, 1901, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff after a trial before the court without a jury, in an action upon a promissory note.

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 action was brought upon a promissory note. The complaint is in the usual form in such actions. The answer, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:

“(1) Denies that there was any consideration in the note described in paragraph 1 of the complaint, but alleges that *38 the same was given for security only to the plaintiff. (2) Denies that there is anything due from the defendants to plaintiff on said note or otherwise.”

No reply was filed by the plaintiff. When the cause was brought on for trial, defendants moved for a judgment on the pleadings. This motion was denied. The cause was thereupon tried to the court without a jury. The court made findings in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a judgment for the amount alleged in the complaint. Defendants appeal.

Appellants took no exception to the findings of the court. These findings must, therefore, be considered as the facts in the case. Rice v. Stevens, 9 Wash. 298 , 37 Pac. 440 ; McKee v. Whitworth, 15 Wash. 536 , 46 Pac. 1045 ; Woodhurst v. Cramer, 29 Wash. 40 , 69 Pac. 501 .

Appellants argue that the court should have granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The answer of defendants was no more than a denial of the facts pleaded in the complaint, and therefore required no reply.

The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Washington Trust Co. v. Local & Long Distance Telephone Co.132 P. 398 (Wash. 1913)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Rice v. Stevens, 37 P. 440 (Wash. 1894) 23
Woodhurst v. Cramer, 69 P. 501 (Wash. 1902) 11
McKee v. Whitworth, 46 P. 1045 (Wash. 1896) 4

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