Burkhalter v. Farmer
Supreme Court of Kansas
Hrror from Doniphan County. The facts of tbe case sufficiently appear in tbe subjoined opinion of tbe court. 1. Tbe instructing tbe jury to return tbe verdict prepared by tbe court was worse tban a non-suit; it prevented tbe jury from finding upon tbe merits of tbe case, in a jury trial. Tbe case was not a total failure of proof; nor was tbe instruction an attempt to instruct.
Read the full summary
Hrror from Doniphan County. The facts of tbe case sufficiently appear in tbe subjoined opinion of tbe court. 1. Tbe instructing tbe jury to return tbe verdict prepared by tbe court was worse tban a non-suit; it prevented tbe jury from finding upon tbe merits of tbe case, in a jury trial. Tbe case was not a total failure of proof; nor was tbe instruction an attempt to instruct. Byrd v. Blissing, 11 Ohio Stah, 362; Case v. Hannahs, 2 Xas., 490; Williams v. Norton, 3 id., 295. 2. It was not competent for tbe. court to instruct tbe jury tbat certain evidence was conclusive, nor was tbe evidence…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kingman, C. J.
The plaintiff in error who was plaintiff below, brought an action against the defendants on an account for merchandise sold and delivered.
The plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf, and testified that he had sold the goods, and the amount was correct; that the goods were delivered to Myers; that Farmer had told plaintiff in the presence of Myers : “If you will let Myers have goods, along, I will pay you for *479them, or settle for them, or something to that effect;” that he had sold the goods on the credit of Farmer, and with a knowledge that Myers was irresponsible.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Calahan v. WardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
- Kamm v. ReesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1910
- State v. R.H.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2021
- Hilliard v. You-Do-It Electronics Hobby Center, Inc.Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1969