Commercial National Bank v. Atkinson
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Marion district court; O. L. Moore, judge. In banc. STATEMENT. This action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant to recover on four promissory notes, copies of which were filed as exhibits to the respective counts of the petition. Three of these notes, marked “exhibit A,” “exhibit B,” and “exhibit D,” purported to have been executed by Atkinson & Gar-lick.
Read the full summary
Error from Marion district court; O. L. Moore, judge. In banc. STATEMENT. This action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant to recover on four promissory notes, copies of which were filed as exhibits to the respective counts of the petition. Three of these notes, marked “exhibit A,” “exhibit B,” and “exhibit D,” purported to have been executed by Atkinson & Gar-lick. The action upon the three notes constituted the first, second and fourth counts in the petition, and it was alleged that the defendant John H. Atkinson and one T. J. Garlick were copartners, and as such…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Ellis, J.:
It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff in error that the affidavit of the defendant’s attorney verifying the amended answer to the third count of the petition is not sufficient, and, therefore, that *780the plaintiff should have had a judgment on said count. We agree with counsel that the affidavit was not sufficient. The statute (Gen. Stat. 1889, ¶ 4197; Gen. Stat. 1897, ch. 95, §114; Gen. Stat. 1899, §43.64) provides : “When the affidavit is made by the agent or attorney, it must set forth the reason why it is not made by the party…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bradford v. PaulySupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Cornett v. HaferSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
3Cited by1 opinion
- Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. BarnesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905