Legal Opinion

Merriam v. West

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 7, 1923No. 24,650PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from Sedgwick district court, division No. 1; Thomas E. Elcock, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action upon a promissory note, negotiable in form, by an indorsee claiming to be a holder in due course. There was a trial to the court, a general finding and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.

The defense was that the note was given for an illegal consideration and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course.

The note was given for a one sixty-fourth interest in an oil and gas lease. As the evidence disclosed that the seller was syndicating an oil lease yet to be developed, the statute (Laws of 1919,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Nyhart v. KubachSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Westhusin v. Landowners Oil Ass'nSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936
  2. Fitch v. United Royalty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1936
  3. Wigington v. Mid-Continent Royalty Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1930
  4. Weisendanger v. LindSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  5. Thomas v. United Royalty Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1937

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