Legal Opinion

Conklin v. Stackfleth

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 7, 1902No. 12,662PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error from Douglas district court; Samuel A. Riggs, judge.

1Per curiam

Two promissory notes were executed svidencing a debt due from their makers, secured by separate mortgages. At the same time a third mortgage was executed on other property to secure these two notes. Separate actions were brought to foreclose the first two mortgages. These actions proceeded to judgment of foreclosure and for a sale of the respective parcels of real estate. In each of the actions, after a sale of the real estate, there remained a deficiency judgment. Thereupon this action was brought by the judgment creditor, setting up the fact of the former actions, the amount of the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Tacoma Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Safety Investment Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Guels v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API