Munn v. Taulman
Supreme Court of Kansas
The petition was in the usual form, on a promissory note, dated at Davenport, Iowa, July 21st, 1856, payable six months after date. The petition was filed February 11th, 1861. The answer sets forth: First.
Read the full summary
The petition was in the usual form, on a promissory note, dated at Davenport, Iowa, July 21st, 1856, payable six months after date. The petition was filed February 11th, 1861. The answer sets forth: First. “ And now comes the said Alvah Munn, the above named defendant, * * and for answer to the petition of said plaintiff filed in the above cause, says . that the said plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof against him, because he says that he denies each and every allegation in plaintiff’s petition alleged against him, and of this he puts himself upon the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Kingman, J.
This cause comes up on error from the district court for Leavenworth county.
The only question is, whether the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer.
The answer sets forth three, grounds of defense, and the demurrer is general, that the answer does not set forth any defense to the action.
If any of the grounds of defense are good, then the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Plaintiff in error very candidly admits that the third clause of the answer constitutes no defense to the action. We think he is right, and also that the second clause is equally…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Stiles, Treasurer v. City of GuthrieSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
- Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Giltner v. StephensSupreme Court of Kansas · 1947
- Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co. v. KennedySupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
- Fetzer & Co. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.