Johnson v. Husband
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Saline District Court. At the November Term, 1877, of the district court, Ebusband and Short had judgment against Johnson, who brings the case to this court. The facts, pleadings and proceedings sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Error from Saline District Court. At the November Term, 1877, of the district court, Ebusband and Short had judgment against Johnson, who brings the case to this court. The facts, pleadings and proceedings sufficiently appear in the opinion. The court should have submitted to the jury the special findings requested by the plaintiff — one of which was, to ascertain whether the jury found that the vendors had knowingly-and fraudulently made false representations as to the condition of the horses. (Bent v. Philbrick, 16 Kas. 190.) As the question was changed and submitted, it was pertinent to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This action was brought April 24,1877,. by J. C. Johnson against E. Husband and W. A. Short, on a promissory note for $170, dated July 22, 1876, due October 1, 1876, payable to the order of Platter & Crew, indorsed,, when made, by Short, and indorsed on August 20, 1876, by Platter & Crew to the plaintiff Johnson.
The defendants set forth in their answer, as a defense to-the action, that the only consideration for said note was two-horses purchased by Husband of said J. C. Johnson and ~W. V. Platter, and N. S. Crew; that the horses were…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Perry v. BaileySupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Bent v. PhilbrickSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
3Cited by19 opinions
- Ex parte MooneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1885
- Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Willfong v. Omaha & St. Louis RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- City of Ottawa v. GillilandSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901
- Harris v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1888
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.