Shattuck v. Chandler
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Phillips District Court. ACTION to recover upon certain promissory notes. The opinion states the'material facts. Trial at the March term, 1887, and judgment for plaintiff Chandler, as assignee of the firm of Pierpont & Tuttle. The defendant Shattuck brings the case here.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
CuogstON, C.:
This was an action upon a large number of promissory notes made payable to Pierpont & Tut-tle, and guaranteed by the firm of Shattuck & Bowers in these words: “For value received, I hereby guarantee the payment of this note according to the terms thereof, waiving demand, notice, and protest. — Shattuck & Bowers.” The evidence shows that Pierpont & Tuttle were a manufacturing firm, located at Bushnell, Illinois, and that Shattuck & Bowers resided in Phillips county, Kansas, and were engaged in the sale of agricultural implements. Certain agricultural implements furnished…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Emerson v. SenterSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Carr v. CatlinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Loeb v. Pierpoint & TuttleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1882
- Lowenstein v. . FlauraudNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Graves v. HallTexas Supreme Court · 1870
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State ex rel. Richardson v. WithrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Newhouse v. HeilbrunSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Campbell v. BohanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
- McFarland v. BateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Parker v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.