Liggett v. Weed
Supreme Court of Kansas
JSrror from, Leavenworth District Court. The action below was commenced by Walsmith, and others, as plaintiffs, upon a draft or bill of exchange drawn by defendant Weed on defendants Scott, Kerr f Co., Sept. 3, 3864, for $3,936, payable to S. Saunders. Saunders assigned said draft to the plaintiffs, each of whom claimed a separate and distinct interest therein.
Read the full summary
JSrror from, Leavenworth District Court. The action below was commenced by Walsmith, and others, as plaintiffs, upon a draft or bill of exchange drawn by defendant Weed on defendants Scott, Kerr f Co., Sept. 3, 3864, for $3,936, payable to S. Saunders. Saunders assigned said draft to the plaintiffs, each of whom claimed a separate and distinct interest therein. Liggett’s interest was $500.„ Said draft was not presented to Scott, Kerr & Co. for acceptance or payment until after the same became due, and when so presented after maturity was not accepted nor paid, either in whole or in part. No…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
Many of the facts in this case are the same as the facts in the case of Carson v. Kerr, just decided, (ante p. 268.) Both cases have grown out of Carson’s contract to furnish hay to the government. Up to the settlement between Carson, Weed, and Saunders, mentioned in said case, the facts of the two cases are identical. At that settlement, as has been stated in the other case, Weed took the vouchers, and drew bills of exchange, commonly called drafts, on Scott, Kerr & Co., in favor of Carson and Saunders, for the amounts found to be due to…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Myrick v. MerrittSupreme Court of Florida · 1886
- Milwaukee Corrugating Co. v. TraylorSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915