Legal Opinion

Hatfield v. Farnum

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1892PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Error from Ford District Court. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the case.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, J.:

Itheal P. Farnum brought this action before a justice of the peace to recover from Hatfield & Smith $132.65, for merchandise sold and delivered to them. Attached to the bill of particulars was an account, the correctness of which was duly verified by affidavit. Hatfield &- Smith answered by a bill of particulars, which admitted the correctness of Farnum’s account, but stated that he was indebted to' them in the sum of $216.90, which they claimed.. They alleged that, at the time they became indebted to Farnum, he and two other persons were…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Dunn v. West & HackleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1845
  2. Newell v. Salmons & WashburnNew York Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Carson v. BarnesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
  4. Redman & Fear v. Malvin & CloudSupreme Court of Iowa · 1867
  5. Baughman v. HaleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lawson v. Lawrence Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API