This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1885. Excerpt: ... 23 Manning v. Haas, 5 Colo. 37. 24 Hill v. Shalter, 731 nd. 450. 25 Lindsley r. Simonds, 2 Abb. Pr. N. S. 69. And see Chautauqua County Bank v. Kisley. 19 N. Y. 36; Mechanics" Bank Assoc. r. Spring Valley etc. Co. 25 Barb. 419. 20 Cowley v. Costello, 15 Hun, 303. And see Smith v. Smith, 8 Jones & S. 203. 27 Carper v. Gaar, 70 Ind. 212. The copy wiM be presumed to he right until tile contrary is shown: Stafford v. Davidson, 47 Ind. 31"J; Crandall v. First Nat. Bauk, 61 Ind. 349. § 124. Bills and notes--Answer.--In an action upon a promissory note, a general answer of no consideration is held to be good.1 But a general answer of failure of consideration is bad, and such failure must be specifically pleaded.2 And under the Colorado practice, in an action on a promissory note, it is proper to plead the want of consideration by specific averment, and in such case an issue is formed without a repty.3 An answer averring that, for a good consideration, an agreement for renewal and extension of tho note sued upon had been made, is good, though it does not allege it to have been made in writing.4 An answer averring that the note sued on was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, and covin, without specifically setting forth the facts constituting the fraud, presents an issuable fact, and a reply must be made to it.5 Evidence showing that a note has been altered after execution is admissible under an answer denying that the defendant made the note in the complaint mentioned.6 And where the defendant alleged as his defense that the note was fraudulently altered in a material point after delivery, without the knowledge or consent of the maker, it was held that the material alteration, though innocently made, was sufficient to avoid the note, and that the allegatio...