Beverly v. Fairchild

47 Kan. 289
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 Kan. 289 (Beverly v. Fairchild) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beverly v. Fairchild, 47 Kan. 289 (kan 1891).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

The mortgage which was foreclosed was dated the 18th of March, 1887. J. L. Beverly purchased the premises mortgaged on the 25th of April, 1887, and assumed the payment of the mortgage. He was therefore the owner of the premises subject to the mortgage lien, and entitled to the possession of the same. When the action was commenced by Wm. Fairchild and John Higginbotham, on the 22d day of September, 1888, to foreclose the mortgage and obtain personal judgments, Beverly was a necessary party defendant in [291]*291the foreclosure proceedings. It was decided by this court long ago that, in an action to recover upon a note and foreclose a mortgage given to secure the same, no indorsement was required on the summons, it not being an action for the recovery of money only. (Civil Code, § 59; George v. Hatton, 2 Kas. 333; Weaver v. Gardner, 14 id. 347.) Therefore, we think in this case, considering the action and the judgment rendered, that the failure to indorse the summons did not make the judgment void. (Simpson v. Rice, 43 Kas. 22; Friend v. Green, 43 id. 167.)

If the plaintiffs in the original action had wholly disregarded the mortgage, and brought their action against Beverly only upon his promise to pay the notes secured by the mortgage, the action might then have been considered one for money only, and in such a case an indorsement of the summons would have been necessary; but such was not the action which was commenced.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mudge v. Hull
43 P. 242 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Kan. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beverly-v-fairchild-kan-1891.