Case ID: wash_39/html/0037-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(No. 5267.
    Decided May 8, 1905.)
    J. M. Adams, Respondent, v. John T. Casey et al., Appellants.
      
    
    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.
    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.
    Affirmed.
    
      Casey & Casey and Solon T. Williams, for appellants.
    
      Byers & Byers, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 80 Pac. 853.
    
   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 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.