Cleary v. Logan

Supreme Court of Kansas

Cleary v. Logan

72 P. 1098, 66 Kan. 799, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 183

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 11, 1903

DocketNo. 13,055

StatusPublished

This text of 72 P. 1098 (Cleary v. Logan) 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

Cleary v. Logan, 72 P. 1098, 66 Kan. 799, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 183 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was an action by the assignee of two promissory notes executed by Logan as part of the purchase-price of thrashing machinery. Among other defenses, Logan pleaded that the plaintiff Was not the owner and holder of the notes, and had no right, title or interest in the same. Evidence was introduced in support of this and other defenses pleaded. The jury found generally for Logan, and specially that the plaintiff Cleary did not purchase the notes and was not their owner. This finding was based upon contradictory evidence, of the value of which the jury were the sole judges. They having determined that Cleary was not the owner of the notes, he cannot recover upon them. (Stewart v. Price, 64 Kan. 191, 67 Pac. 553.)

There is much contention as to the correctness of the court’s rulings in other matters, the consideration of which we are not required to go into, the plaintiff having no right to recover by reason of the fact that he is not the owner of the notes.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This was an action by the assignee of two promissory notes executed by Logan as part of the purchase-price of thrashing machinery. Among other defenses, Logan pleaded that the plaintiff Was not the owner and holder of the notes, and had no right, title or interest in the same. Evidence was introduced in support of this and other defenses pleaded. The jury found generally for Logan, and specially that the plaintiff Cleary did not purchase the notes and was not their owner. This finding was based upon contradictory evidence, of the value of which the jury were the sole judges. They having determined that Cleary was not the owner of the notes, he cannot recover upon them. (Stewart v. Price, 64 Kan. 191, 67 Pac. 553.)

There is much contention as to the correctness of the court’s rulings in other matters, the consideration of which we are not required to go into, the plaintiff having no right to recover by reason of the fact that he is not the owner of the notes.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 P. 1098, 66 Kan. 799, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleary-v-logan-kan-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack