Legal Opinion

Peacock v. Boyle

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1889PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error from Osage District Court. The opinion states the case.

1Per curiam

Action to recover upon a promissory note and to foreclose a land contract, assigned as security for the payment of the note. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff alleges error.

The general finding of the jury is based upon disputed facts and conflicting testimony, and, being approved by the district court, must stand. (K. P. Rly. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kas. 145.)

There is nothing substantial in the objection to the rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. Judgment affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. KunkelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1876

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Deets v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897
  2. Sickinger v. State ex rel. HutchinsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891