McCreary v. Cockrill
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth County. Tbe facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The new trial was erroneously granted. If this be true, it settles the controversy here. This court ought to order the first verdict to stand and judgment to be entered upon it. 1 Gr. & Wat.
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth County. Tbe facts of the case appear in the opinion of the court. 1. The new trial was erroneously granted. If this be true, it settles the controversy here. This court ought to order the first verdict to stand and judgment to be entered upon it. 1 Gr. & Wat. New Tr., 2. The correctness of the law as expounded by the court in the allowance of the testimony touching the relations of the two defendants as principal and. surety, cannot be controverted here, as there is no appeal from it. 3d Ohio,p. 33, (Smith v. Bing); 1 Handy, p. 271, (Smead dec.) 3. The question which is…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kingman, J.
The defendant, Clinton Cockrill, sued the plaintiff Mc-Creary and Hines on a note signed by McCreary as principal and Hines as security. Hines in his answer admitted the statements in the petition, but claimed that he was only surety in the note. McCreary denied all the statements in the petition, set up several causes of defense and claimed that Hines was principal in the note and himself surety.
The cause was submitted to the jury, and they found for the plaintiff, and that Hines was principal in the note, and that McCreary was surety. Hines moved for a new trial on…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ryan v. Topeka Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1871