Shelby v. Judd
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Wyandotte District Court. May lltb, 1878, plaintiff in error brought this action in the district court of Wyandotte county against the defendant in error, to recover $3,629, with interest.
Read the full summary
Error from Wyandotte District Court. May lltb, 1878, plaintiff in error brought this action in the district court of Wyandotte county against the defendant in error, to recover $3,629, with interest. January 16th, 1879, an amended petition was filed, in the following words and figures (omitting the title and name of the court): “1. Plaintiff says that on the 30th day of August, 1872, one Russell Garrett executed and delivered to said defendant his certain promissory note, in words and figures as follows: $2,355. Wyandotte City, Kansas, August 30th, A. D. 1872. Twelve months after date, for…
1Opinion of the Court
'The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, O. J.:
The question presented by the record is, ■ does the petition state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of *165action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant? The decision of this court in Swartz v. Redfield, 13 Kas. 550, virtually disposes of the inquiry in the negative. It was there held, that the indorsement of a note, after maturity, is in effect the drawing of a new bill, payable on demand, and to hold the indorser, demand and notice of non-payment are essential. The note set forth in the petition we are considering, bears…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Swartz v. RedfieldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
3Cited by7 opinions
- Merrill v. HurleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
- Markey v. CoreyMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Dunham v. PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Maine Trust & Banking Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Behrens v. KirkgardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.