Kupfer v. Sponhorst
Supreme Court of Kansas
The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in error claims that in no view of the premises judgment should have been entered against both defendants in the Court below as principals. I. Defendants, Kupfer and Crowell, by failing to enter their appearance admitted all the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s petition (§ 137, Code Civ.
Read the full summary
The facts of the case appear in the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in error claims that in no view of the premises judgment should have been entered against both defendants in the Court below as principals. I. Defendants, Kupfer and Crowell, by failing to enter their appearance admitted all the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s petition (§ 137, Code Civ. Fro.), and as there is nothing either on the face of the notes or in the petition showing that that the makers of said notes stood in any other relation than both as principals, judgment should have been accordingly. Section four…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Bailey, J.
This is a petition in error to reverse or modify a judgment rendered at the last October term of the Second District Court sitting in the county of Atchison.
*84The action in the Court below was brought by Sponhorst and Hackman, two of the defendants in error, co-partners as Sponhorst & Co., against Charlotte A. Crowell (now made a defendant in error) and John F. Kupfer, the plaintiff in error, to recover the amount of two promissory notes signed by said Charlotte A. Crowell and said John F. Kupfer, jointly and severally, and payable to said Sponhorst & Co. The judgment was…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lucas v. SturrSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Guild v. McDanielsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Emery v. Farmers State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Points v. JacobiaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Stump v. Richardson County BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.