Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fisher v. Pendleton

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 13, 1961No. 42,112Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Robb J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part): I concur fully with the first conclusion contained in the majority opinion that plaintiff was competent to testify in regard to payments made on the note by Iris Pendleton, but I do not agree with the second conclusion that there was competent evidence to establish the kind of ratification of the payments in controversy that would toll the statute of limitations as to Nelle Pendleton.

In the recent case of Kindsvater v. Hineman, 181 Kan. 990, 317 P. 2d 852, the payee sued the comaker wife on a note that was barred by the statute. In response…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Good v. EhrlichSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
  2. Pessemier v. ZellerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
  3. Fisher v. PendletonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1959
  4. Shanks v. LouthanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  5. Gorrill v. GoffSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API