Legal Opinion

William Deering & Co. v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 8, 1901No. 12,321PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error from Montgomery district'court; A. H. Skid-more, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

*175The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, J.:

This was an action to recover upon a promissory note for $100, bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum from date, given by J. C. and Mary E. Cunningham to Maud L. Sherrill. It is one of a series of notes given in pursuance of an agreement, of which the following is a copy :

“This Agreement, Made and entered into by and between J. C. Cunningham, and E. Sherrill and Maud L. Sherrill, witnesseth :
“That the said E. Sherrill is to dismiss, at his cost, the suit now pending in the state of Illinois entitled E. Sherrill against…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Trist v. ChildSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  3. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
  4. Tool Co. v. NorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
  5. Milbank v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1891

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Jamison v. FlannerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924
  2. Bell v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1935
  3. Spaulding v. MailletMontana Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Gordon v. Gordon's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
  5. Stoskopf v. StoskopfSupreme Court of Kansas · 1952

8 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