Legal Opinion

Hangen v. Pinkston

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 11, 1922No. 23,491PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Kiowa district court; Littleton M. Day, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

West, J.:

This action was brought upon a promissory note payable to the order of J. H. Taylor, signed 0. H. Pinkston, and indorsed J. H. Taylor, per C. A. T. Plaintiff alleged that he was the holder and owner in due course.

The answer, after a general denial, alleged that the plaintiff was not the owner and holder of the note, but that he was the agent and tool of C. A. Taylor and W. S. Taylor, and a bank employee in a bank where they transacted business. It admitted the execution of the note', but alleged that it was procured in the following manner:

“Tha…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Crump v. LanhamSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
  2. Stevens v. InchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  3. Underwood v. VilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
  4. Union National Bank v. PirotteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920
  5. Naftzger v. BuserSupreme Court of Kansas · 1920

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Hudson State Bank v. HaileSupreme Court of Kansas · 1930
  3. Macksville State Bank v. EhrlichSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API