{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: gotiations, both the wife and her attorney did not have any knowledge of the actual facts, and that she was then ignorant of the defense upon which she now relies. Be that as it may, such negotiations were more or less in the nature of a compromise which was rejected by the bank, and it appears that in any event both the wife and her attorney did not have any knowledge of the facts upon which they now rely as a defense. There is no claim or pretense that the debt in question was contracted for or on account of the "usual daily expenses of the family, incurred by the wife or by her order, with the tacit consent of the husband," as provided for in article 1362 of the Civil Code. Neither is there any evidence tending to show that the wife was 63 legally liable for any portion of the original debt evidence by the note in question. This decision as to the bank on this motion is based on the assumption that the facts are true as set forth and alleged in the petition to set aside and vacate the judgment as to the wife, but we are not making any finding as to the actual truth of such facts. That remains for the defendant wife to prove such alleged facts when the case is tried on its merits. It follows that the opinion of the lower court in refusing to set aside and vacate the judgment of the plaintiff bank against the defendant wife is reversed, and that judgment is vacated and set aside, and as to the bank the case is remanded to the lower court, with leave for the wife to file an answer to plaintiff's cause of action, and to have the case tried on its merits and for any further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. As to the judgment in favor of the Dominican Fathers, it appears that their plea above quoted in the statement of facts was filed on April 24, 1924. In that plea they say that they have a first mortgage on the property described in paragraph IV of the complaint for P125,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum. That the mortgagors Jean M. P...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}