Humphreys v. Keith
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from FranJdin District Court. Humphreys sued Keith on a promissory note. The district court, at the December Term 1871, held that plaintiff was not the party in interest, and could not for that reason recover, and. gave judgment for defendant for costs. The plaintiff brings the case here on error.
Read the full summary
Error from FranJdin District Court. Humphreys sued Keith on a promissory note. The district court, at the December Term 1871, held that plaintiff was not the party in interest, and could not for that reason recover, and. gave judgment for defendant for costs. The plaintiff brings the case here on error. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. 1. Giving the broadest and most favorable construction to defendant’s answer, taken with the evidence in the case, it can mean no more 'than this: “The plaintiff does not own this note. It belongs to the heirs of Seth Taylor — who are…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
Plaintiff brought suit on a promissory note executed by defendant, and payable to Seth Taylor or order. After the execution of the note Seth Taylor died, leaving as his heirs the plaintiff, his widow, and three children by a former wife. Plaintiff was appointed administratrix, and settled the estate, paying all the debts except one due and allowed to herself. She made a final settlement which was approved. In her statement for final settlement she reported this note uncollectible on account of the then insolvency of defendant. The probate…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dean v. HewitNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by2 opinions
- Parker v. BeasleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1936
- Presbury v. PickettCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1895