Legal Opinion
Bartholomew v. Fell
Supreme Court of Kansas
Decided April 11, 1914No. 18,696PublishedCited by 19 opinions
Appeal from Butler district court; Granville P. Aikman, judge.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Porter, J.:
The plaintiff sued the defendant alleging that one C. A. Bing was indebted to him and gave a written order on the defendant directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $250; that the order was accepted by the defendant and remained unpaid. The order was as follows:
“Latham, Kansas, December 31,1910.
Mr. W. W. Fell, please pay to C. H. Bartholomew ($250.00) Two Hundred and fifty Dollars and oblige.
C. A. Bing.”
“I except order. W. W. Fell.”. The answer admitted the execution of the order and that defendant accepted the same, but…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Wilson v. PowersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Reynolds v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- McFarland v. SikesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1886
3Cited by19 opinions
- Rice v. RiceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
- Talbott v. NibertSupreme Court of Kansas · 1949
- Scott v. PrescottMontana Supreme Court · 1924
- McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. StevensMontana Supreme Court · 1921
- Peoples State Bank v. Hoisington Cooperative Mercantile Manufacturing Ass'nSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.