11 Wash. 203 | Wash. | 1895
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is the second appeal in this cause. See 9 Wash. 142 ( 37 Pac. 287), where it was reversed upon an appeal by the plaintiff and was sent back for a new trial. Judgment was rendered, for the plaintiff and appealed from by the defendant.
The first point urged is that the defendant had no authority to issue the note in question, and it is claimed that the former judgment of this court does not conclude the defendant from raising the point upon this appeal. But this question is immaterial, for the complaint stated a cause of action upon the original contract for the purchase of the engine, the action being to recover the balance due, prior payments having been made thereon; and we held that the complaint was sufficient.
Affirmed.
Hoyt, C. J., and Dunbar, Anders and Gordon, JJ., concur.