McCoy v. Hazlett
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Diolcinson District Cowrt. Injunction by McCoy, to restrain the collection of a judgment. Trial at the September .Term 1873, before H. G. B., judge pro tern. Finding and judgment in favor of Hazlett, and plaintiff brings the case here.
Read the full summary
Error from Diolcinson District Cowrt. Injunction by McCoy, to restrain the collection of a judgment. Trial at the September .Term 1873, before H. G. B., judge pro tern. Finding and judgment in favor of Hazlett, and plaintiff brings the case here. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. contended that the testimony showed that the note was taken by Hazlett in satisfaction of the judgment. cited Merrick v. Boury, 4 Ohio St., 60; Porter v. Talcott, 1 Cowen, 380, and Tobey v. Barber, 5 Johns., 72, that a note given by a debtor for a preexisting debt is no payment of the original demand, unless…
1Opinion of the Court
*431The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
The facts in this case are as follows: Hazlett commenced an attachment suit against McCoy in the district court of Dickinson county, and at the April Term 1870 recovered a judgment for $649.29. On the same day McCoy paid $500 in cash, and gave his note for the balance payable on or before the 1st of August next ensuing. In consideration of this Hazlett released his attachment-lien, and credited the $500 on the judgment. McCoy claims that he paid and that Hazlett received the cash and note in full satisfaction of the judgment, and that the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Shepard & Playford v. John G. Allen & SonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876
- Medberry, Yetter & Co. v. Soper, Brainard & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1877