Hadden v. Rodkey
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sumner District Court. The only question here, and all necessary facts, will be found fully stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error from Sumner District Court. The only question here, and all necessary facts, will be found fully stated in the opinion. Rodkey had judgment at the April Term 1875, and Sadden brings the case here. contended that the mere transfer by delivery only, of negotiable paper payable to order, does not prevent the maker from setting up any defense that he might have pleaded in an action brought by the payee; 11 Kas. 464; 100 Mass. 18; 50 N. H. 474; and as the note in controversy was not “indorsed” by the payee, it was competent to show by parol, that the consideration was an unlawful one; 1…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This was an action on two promissory notes, and a mortgage. The only questions however involved in the case are such as arise in connection with the second note set forth in the plaintiff's petition. This note was given by Elisha Hadden to ¥m. D. Sanders for the sum of $72, and made payable to said Sanders or order. The action was commenced by John L. Rodkey, defendant in error, plaintiff below. Rodkey alleged in his petition below, among other things, that, “ before the note last aforesaid became due and payable, the plaintiff, for a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Toll v. Monitor Binding & Printing Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
- Farnsworth v. BurdickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Third Nat. Bank v. HarrisonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1882
- De Hass v. RobertsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1894
- Gault v. KaneSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.