Young v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Douglas Ooimty. This was an action in the usual form on a note, as follows : “ Leoompton, K. T., March 9th, 1858. Twelve' months after date I promise to pay H. G-. Eant or order, for value received, two hundred and fifty dollars, and if not paid at maturity, then to draw interest at the rate of ten per cent, per month until paid. (Signed) T. H. Clemo.” And a mortgage given by Clemo to secure said note.
Read the full summary
Error from Douglas Ooimty. This was an action in the usual form on a note, as follows : “ Leoompton, K. T., March 9th, 1858. Twelve' months after date I promise to pay H. G-. Eant or order, for value received, two hundred and fifty dollars, and if not paid at maturity, then to draw interest at the rate of ten per cent, per month until paid. (Signed) T. H. Clemo.” And a mortgage given by Clemo to secure said note. A money judgment was asked and an order for the sale of the mortgaged premises and a decree of foreclosure against the defendants, including Young, plaintiff in error. Young filed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kingman, <L
This' is a petition in error brought to reverse a judgment of the District Court of Douglas County.
The suit was brought by the defendant in error, Charles L. Thompson, to obtain a money judgment and a foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the payment of a note given by T. H. Cierno to Hamilton G. Eant or order, and by Fant assigned to Thompson. This note and mortgage were dated March 9, 1858. Young was made a defendant as claiming some interest in the land.
*113Young answers setting up a subsequent mortgage by Clemo and wife of tbe premises to him, and a foreclosure…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Union Institution for Savings v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- National Life Ins. Co. v. HaleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Browne v. SteckSupreme Court of Colorado · 1873
- Kennard v. MabryTexas Supreme Court · 1890
- Hovey v. EdmisonSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1884