Legal Opinion

Mentzer v. Burlingame

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 6, 1908No. 15,204PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Error from Woodson district court; Oscar Foust, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

A former judgment was reversed for error in sustaining a demurrer based on the statute of limitations, which defense this court held did not appear on the face of the petition. (Mentzer v. Burlingame, 71 Kan. 581, 81 Pac. 196.) Plaintiff and defendant were cosureties for the Yates Center Creamery Association on two promissory notes which were held by the Yates Center Bank. On April 11, 1898, when the notes matured, the bank took a new note for the amount of both, which was signed by the plaintiff and other cosureties but which was not signed…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Clark v. HewittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Gross v. DavisTennessee Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Loewenthal v. CoonanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Reed v. HumphreySupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
  5. Scott v. NicholsMississippi Supreme Court · 1854

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Commerce Union Bank v. Burger-In-A-Pouch, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Cipra v. SeegerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  3. Kee v. LoftonCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1987
  4. Leslie v. ComptonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1918
  5. Bell v. MortonIdaho Supreme Court · 1924

7 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