ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

3. That the defendant relied upon the same, and, believing them to be true, executed said note; that defendant received no consideration therefor.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 779-Defense of mistake in amount of note.

[Title of court and cause.]

That said note was given upon a settlement of account between the defendant and the plaintiff, and was intended by them to be made and received for the sum of $ , then claimed by the plaintiff to be the amount due him from the defendant; but that when said note was made it was, by mistake of the parties, given for the sum of $ , mentioned in the complaint, instead of the sum of $ which was all that was due; and as to the excess, to wit, $ same is without consideration.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 780-Defense that acceptance was for accommodation. [Title of court and cause.]

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the

The defendant answering the complaint (or petition] of the plaintiff, alleges:

That the bill mentioned therein was accepted by this defendant solely for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and that there never was any value or consideration for the acceptance or payment of said bill by the defendant. [Etc.]

FORM No. 781-Defense that defendant was a married woman, and signed the note as surety only for her husband.

(From Emerson Co. v. Knapp, 90 Wis. 34; 52 N. W. 945.) [Title of court and cause.]

That at the time this defendant executed the note described in the complaint herein, she was, and still is, a married woman, and the wife of J. K., and that the said J. K. executed said note as principal maker in payment of a debt then owing by him individually to the plaintiff, and for no other consideration, and that this defendant thereupon signed said note at the request of, and as surety for, her said husband, and not otherwise, and this defendant received no consideration for said note, nor did the same in any way concern her separate property or business.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 782-Defense of unauthorized and fraudulent acceptance. [Title of court and cause.]

The defendants, for answer to the complaint [or petition] of the plaintiff herein, allege:

That the bill mentioned therein was made without the authority or consent of these defendants, out of the course of their regular business, and without consideration to them, accepted in their name by one C. D., fraudulently pretending to act under their authority, but in fact having no authority to accept the same.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 783-Defense of alteration of instrument. (In general.) [Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition], and alleges:

That after the making and issue of said note, and before this action, the same was altered in a material part without the knowledge or consent of this defendant by [here state the alteration made]. [Etc.]

FORM No. 784-Defense based upon material alteration in note by changing the name of the payor.

(In Horn v. Newton City Bank, 32 Kan. 518; 4 Pac. 1022.), [Title of court and cause.]

The defendants say that the note sued on in this action was originally executed by them to X. Y., but that since its said execution the same has been altered and so changed as to make it payable to Y. Z.; that said change was made without the knowledge or consent of these defendants, and is in fraud of their rights, and was so changed and assigned to the plaintiff for the purpose of preventing them from pleading thereto a failure of consideration and other equitable defenses existing against said note in favor of these defendants; that by reason of said change, which is material and fraudulent upon the rights of these defendants, said note has become absolutely void.

[Ete)

Jury's Pl.-88.

FORM No. 785-Defense that note was given for losses sustained by sale of "options on 'change," a fictitious and gambling transaction.

(In Sprague v. Warren, 26 Neb. 326; 41 N. W. 1113; 3 L. R. A. 679.) [Title of court and cause.] [After introductory part:] 1. That heretofore, on the commission merchants in

day of

, 19 , plaintiffs were

,

dealt

,

2. That plaintiffs at said time, under the firm name of and traded in what are known as "options on 'change" in grain, by selling and buying in market, on 'change, certain grain for future delivery, when, in fact, no delivery was ever intended or demanded, and no grain was bought or sold or intended to be.

3. That on said day defendant took an "option" of said plaintiffs on grain as aforesaid, for future delivery, when, in fact, no delivery was ever intended or demanded, and no grain was bought or sold or intended to be.

4. That the whole transaction was a venture and speculation on margins, depending for profit or loss on the fluctuations of the market, and was wholly a fictitious and gambling transaction.

5. That in such transaction no consideration was received.

6. That the said note sued upon herein was given for losses in so trading in said "options" at said time as aforesaid, and is without consideration and wholly void, which plaintiffs well knew, and in violation of the law and contrary to public policy.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 786-Defense of usury in making note.

[Title of court and cause.]

[After introductory part:]

1. That defendant gave to the plaintiff the note mentioned in said complaint in pursuance of an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant that the plaintiff should lend the defendant the sum of

$

,

,

day of

,

19 until the

,

from the day of 19 , upon interest at the rate of per cent per annum.

2. That the defendant received from the plaintiff $

only as

consideration for the said note, the plaintiff retaining $

as inter

est thereon. [Or allege the facts showing any other manner by

which usury was exacted.]

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 787-Defenses-(1) denials, (2) dishonoring of drafts due to acts of plaintiff, (3) that value of property was offset by value of drafts, (4) payment, (5) wrongful diversion of surplus money which should have been applied to payment, (6) non-observance of instructions and failure to enforce lien, (7) failure to deliver agreed security.-Action upon guaranty of drafts with bills of lading attached.

(In First National Bank v. Bowers, 153 Cal. 95; 94 Pac. 422.) [Title of court and cause.]

Now comes defendant, and for answer to plaintiff's second amended complaint, as amended, admits, denies, and avers as follows: [General defense of denial.]

As a first defense:

1. Admits that on the 1st day of December, 1897, defendant signed and delivered to plaintiff the written instrument in the words and figures set forth in plaintiff's second amended complaint, as amended, but denies that there was a good or valuable, or any consideration at all therefor; admits that the letters "B/L" in said instrument mentioned, were intended and understood by both plaintiff and defendant, at the time of the making and execution of said instrument, to represent and to express the words "bill of lading."

2. Denies that the words "face of all drafts" in said instrument set forth, at the time of the making and execution of said instrument, or at any other time, or at all, were understood by plaintiff and defendant herein, or were understood by plaintiff or defendant, to mean the face of each and every draft for oranges, with bill of lading attached, drawn by the Haight Fruit Company, in favor of the First National Bank of Redlands, during the orange season of 1897 and 1898, or that the same were understood by either plaintiff or defendant to mean the face of each draft, or any draft, so drawn during said season; denies that it was understood that said words "face of all drafts" meant each draft and every draft, or meant each draft or any draft, so drawn during said season; denies that said instrument was signed by defendant, and accepted by said First National Bank of Redlands, or that said instrument was signed by defendant, or that the same was accepted by plaintiff, with such understanding as to the significance of the said instrument.

3. Defendant avers that she has no information or belief upon the subject sufficient to enable her to answer any of the allegations contained in the fifth paragraph of said complaint, and, placing her denial of all of the allegations contained in said paragraph on that ground, she denies each and every allegation in said paragraph contained.

4-8. [Here follow similar denials of allegations contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, of the complaint.] 1

[Defense of dishonoring of drafts due to wrongful acts of the plaintiff.]

And for another, further, and separate defense to plaintiff's alleged cause of action, defendant alleges:

1. That prior to and at the time of the execution by defendant of the instrument set forth in plaintiff's second amended complaint, and as an inducement and consideration leading her so to do, and without which she would not have executed said instrument, the plaintiff represented to defendant that by the terms of said instrument it was understood, and it was in fact understood, to be the effect of the terms of said instrument that by the attaching of the bills of lading therein mentioned to any such drafts that might be drawn in favor of plaintiff by the said Haight Fruit Company, a lien to the amount of the drafts so attached to said bills of lading would be created against the oranges consigned and represented by said bills of lading, and that defendant's liability, if any, under the said instrument was conditioned upon a deficiency remaining unpaid after the exhaustion of the security afforded by said bills of lading; that she should be liable for only 90 per cent of the total amount of the face of all drafts so drawn during the orange season of 1897 and 1898, and not for 90 per cent of the face of each and every draft.

2. That as to all the drafts mentioned in said second amended complaint, upon which defendant's liability as guarantor or otherwise is alleged, the plaintiff, without the consent or knowledge of defendant, permitted the said Haight Fruit Company and the railroad companies issuing the bills of lading attached to said draft, to wrongfully and without authority, divert said consignments to other consignees and other destinations than as represented by said bills of lading; that by reason of such wrongful diversion and non-delivery of such oranges to the respective consignees, in said bills of lading named, said drafts were, and each of them was, dishonored by the respective

1 The complaint in the action of First National Bank of Redlands v. Bowers, supra, is given in form No. 788, p. 1390, for the purpose of fully disclosing the issues raised by the pleadings in the case, and illustrating the various defenses in the answer, form No. 787.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »