Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Chipman

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Decided July 21, 1899No. 395PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error from Miami district court; J. T. Burris, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

Frank Carroll and wife executed their note and a mortgage on their homestead to Daniel L. Chipman. It is now alleged by Chipman that' at the time of the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage there was a verbal agreement between Frank Carroll, the mortgagor, and C.W. Chandler, the resident agent of Chipman, who negotiated the loan, that the property should be insured for the benefit of Chipman. Before the trial Frank Carroll died and the action was revived against the widow and children, the plaintiffs in error. At the trial, C.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Murphy v. HindmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1897
  2. Burlington National Bank v. BeardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1895
  3. Darwin v. KeigherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
  4. Pulsifer v. ArbuthnotSupreme Court of Kansas · 1898

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gaines Bros. Co. v. GainesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  2. Shawnee State Bank v. Royal Union Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1929
  3. Taylor v. American Home Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API