Goodyear v. Williams
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sedgwick district court; Thomas C. Wilson, judge. STATEMENT. The plaintiff in error commenced this suit in the district court of Sedgwick county to recover upon a promissory note and coupons, and to foreclose a real-estate mortgage given to secure the same, the note having become due by reason of a default in the payment of an interest coupon.
Read the full summary
Error from Sedgwick district court; Thomas C. Wilson, judge. STATEMENT. The plaintiff in error commenced this suit in the district court of Sedgwick county to recover upon a promissory note and coupons, and to foreclose a real-estate mortgage given to secure the same, the note having become due by reason of a default in the payment of an interest coupon. The defendants, Williams and wife, answered that there was a condition in the note and mortgage by the terms of which they were authorized, at their option, to pay off the same at any interest-paying period by giving thirty days’ notice in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
The sole issue in this case is whether Goode was the agent of the plaintiff to receive the alleged payment. It is not contended that Goode had the possession of the principal note or of the coupon claimed to have been paid at the time of the payment of the note. Goode could only become the agent of the *194plaintiff by will of the plaintiff and the acceptance of such agency by Goode. The intent of the plaintiff to make Goode his agent might have been evidenced by-written or oral instructions directing Goode to take charge of plaintiff’s loans…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Ulen v. KnecttleWyoming Supreme Court · 1936
- Walmer v. RedingerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
- Hamlin v. NaceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Allen v. WaddleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1922
- Pioneer Mortgage Co. v. RandallSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923