Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kaw Valley State Bank v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 8, 1934No. 32,089Published

1DissentJohnston, C. J.

I am unable to concur in the judgment that the plaintiff was not entitled to foreclose the mortgage which he held. It has been the rule in Kansas from the beginning that the note and mortgage may be sued on separately and it may be found unnecessary to foreclose the mortgage. The court has recognized that the suit on the note is one of law to be tried by a jury, but the foreclosure of the mortgage is one in equity and must be foreclosed by the court. Because the mortgage is an incident of the note it has been held that it in fact may be held to constitute a part of the cause of action on the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rossiter v. MerrimanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  2. Andrews v. AlcornSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
  3. Lichty v. McMartinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
  4. Farmers & Bankers Life Insurance v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
  5. Hunt v. BowmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1901

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