Rouse v. Bartholomew
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sedgwick District Court. The opinion states the nature of the action and the material facts. Plaintiff Bartholomew had judgment, and defendant Rouse comes to this court.
Read the full summary
Error from Sedgwick District Court. The opinion states the nature of the action and the material facts. Plaintiff Bartholomew had judgment, and defendant Rouse comes to this court. The court will notice that the “Exhibit A,” being the deed under which the plaintiff in error was sought to be charged with the assumption of the mortgage, did not describe the lots on Fourth avenue in English’s third addition, but described certain property on Fourth avenue in English’s addition to the city of Wichita, Kas. In other words, the description in the deed and the description in the petition were wholly…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Allen, J.:
*429 1‘ timVnot raised "below.
*428Bartholomew, as plaintiff below, sued Rouse to recover $2,750, with interest, claiming that, on February 5,1887, one J. E. Vandeventer executed two promissory notes to Smith and Brooks, for the sum of $2,700 each, with 8 per cent, interest, to be paid at maturity, but 12 per cent, if not paid at maturity, and secured the same by a mortgage on lots 78, 80, 82, and 84, on Fourth avenue, in English’s third addition to the city of Wichita; that, on the 7th day of February, Vandeventer conveyed an undivided half interest…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Anthony v. HermanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- DeJarnette v. VernerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Searing v. BentonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889
3Cited by7 opinions
- City Nat. Bank of Huron, SD v. FullerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
- Stewart v. MurphySupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Gibson v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Kuhn v. National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- White v. UptonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.