McConnell v. Hamm
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Woodson District Court. Action by McConnell against Hamm, to recover $140 alleged to be in his hands as treasurer of the city of Neosho Falls, legally and properly payable to plaintiff as owner and holder of certain bonds and coupons. All the necessary facts appear in the opinion. The district court, at the June Term 1874, gave judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff brings the case here on error. The answer of Hamm presents no defense to the petition.
Read the full summary
Error from Woodson District Court. Action by McConnell against Hamm, to recover $140 alleged to be in his hands as treasurer of the city of Neosho Falls, legally and properly payable to plaintiff as owner and holder of certain bonds and coupons. All the necessary facts appear in the opinion. The district court, at the June Term 1874, gave judgment in favor of defendant, and plaintiff brings the case here on error. The answer of Hamm presents no defense to the petition. It simply alleges the illegality of the bonds and coupons. But McConnell did not sue upon the bonds or coupons, and does not…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
This case was tried by the court, in the court below, on an agreed statement of facts, which may be briefly stated as follows: To aid in the construction of a mill for the manufacture of wool in the city of Neosho Falls, Woodson county, said city on the 20th of June 1872, issued and donated to R. P. & R. W. Pilling & Bro. its bonds in the sum of $11,000, in denominations of $100 each, numbered successively from 1 to 110, inclusive, payable in ten years, and bearing interest at 7 per cent, per annum, with coupons attached, numbered…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Flott v. Wenger Mixer Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1961
- In Re Estate of SowderSupreme Court of Kansas · 1959
- State ex rel. Mellott v. MasonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Eyers Woolen Co. v. GilsumSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1929
- Central Branch U. P. R. Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.