Legal Opinion

Good v. Ehrlich

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided May 9, 1903No. 13,124PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Error from Marion district court; O. L. Moore, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Cunningham, J.:

Before plaintiff in this action could recover, he must have removed the bar of the statute of limitations which had apparently run on the note upon which his action'was based. This he *95attempted to do by pleading that a payment had been made thereon. He was the purchaser of this note, which had been given to the First State Ban'k of Marion, from the assignee of that bank. At the time of its purchase there was attached to it by a rubber band a note made by one Waterman, payable to the order of Ehrlich Brothers, the makers of the note…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. United States v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Steele v. SouderSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
  3. Letson v. KenyonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
  4. Arnold v. DowningNew York Supreme Court · 1852
  5. Butler v. PriceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Arthur & Co. v. BurkeWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Jarnagin v. DitusSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
  3. Berry v. Oklahoma State BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  4. Keota Mills & Elevator v. GambleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010
  5. Pessemier v. ZellerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1936

22 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