Robbins v. Baker
Oregon Supreme Court
Error to Multnomah County. This was an action on a promissory note, given by one E. N. Blanchet to the defendant, G. C. Bobbins, and after-wards indorsed by the defendant, Bobbins, to the plaintiff, Baker, who brings this suit against Blanchet and Bobbins, charging Bobbins as indorser. Bobbins answers, denying due demand for payment of the note from the maker, Blanchet, and also denying due notice to himself of non-payment.
Read the full summary
Error to Multnomah County. This was an action on a promissory note, given by one E. N. Blanchet to the defendant, G. C. Bobbins, and after-wards indorsed by the defendant, Bobbins, to the plaintiff, Baker, who brings this suit against Blanchet and Bobbins, charging Bobbins as indorser. Bobbins answers, denying due demand for payment of the note from the maker, Blanchet, and also denying due notice to himself of non-payment. The answer was excepted to in the court below as being insufficient, and the portion excepted to is in these words: “ Defendant for answer says that he has not knowledge…
1Opinion of the CourtBoise, C. J.
The Statute, page 90, sec. 46, provides that the answer of a defendant shall contain a specific denial of each material allegation in the complaint according to his knowledge, information or belief, or of any knowledge or *53information sufficient to form a belief.” The answer in this case does not declare absolutely that the defendant has no knowledge of the matter controverted, but denies that he has sufficient knowledge to make up an opinion or form a belief. If the answer had contained the word any, used in the statute, and stated that he had not cmy knowledge or information sufficient to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wilson v. AllenOregon Supreme Court · 1883
- Sherman v. OsbornOregon Supreme Court · 1879
- Law Trust Society v. HogueOregon Supreme Court · 1900