Williams v. Norton
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth County. This was an action, tried before a jury, brought on a promissory note alleged to have been transferred to plaintiff as security for a debt, with power to sue in his own name, alleging that the plaintiff was at tbe time of tbe suit tbe legal owner and holder thereof.
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth County. This was an action, tried before a jury, brought on a promissory note alleged to have been transferred to plaintiff as security for a debt, with power to sue in his own name, alleging that the plaintiff was at tbe time of tbe suit tbe legal owner and holder thereof. The answer contained among other defenses — a general denial — a denial that plaintiff was the legal owner and holder of the note sued upon; an averment that at the time of the transfer to plaintiff, the payee was a rebel in arms against the United States; the statute of limitations, &c. The record…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Crozier, C. J.
Two objections are made to the judgment of the court below; First. The District Court has no power to order a non-suit without the consent of the plaintiff, except in the *297cases provided for in the second, third, fourth and fifth clauses of section 882 of the Code; and Second. If it has power in either case, this is not one of them.
The section referred to is as follows: “ Section 382. An action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action : First. By the plaintiff’ before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court, where the trial is by…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Greig v. RiordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bankers' Nat. BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Doughty v. FunkSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Walburn v. ChenaultSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- O'Keeffe v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.