Coryell v. Bank of Fort Scott

Supreme Court of Kansas

Coryell v. Bank of Fort Scott

71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 784, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 164

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 7, 1903

DocketNo. 12,994

StatusPublished

This text of 71 P. 1126 (Coryell v. Bank of Fort Scott) 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

Coryell v. Bank of Fort Scott, 71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 784, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 164 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The case-made herein does not contain all the evidence or all the pleadings; the demurrer to the evidence is omitted. A contract introduced by defendants [785]*785below, referred to in the testimony as “Exhibit E,” and another, as “Exhibit Gf,” are omitted, although the record contains blank spaces for their insertion. They are said in the briefs to be guaranties by the bank and the Hart Nursery Company. We are, therefore, left to consider whether the findings of the court support the judgment. It was found that neither the nursery corporation nor the bank assumed or agreed to pay the note of plaintiff in error. We have examined the conclusions of fact and cannot say that the judgment is not sustained by them.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The case-made herein does not contain all the evidence or all the pleadings; the demurrer to the evidence is omitted. A contract introduced by defendants [785]*785below, referred to in the testimony as “Exhibit E,” and another, as “Exhibit Gf,” are omitted, although the record contains blank spaces for their insertion. They are said in the briefs to be guaranties by the bank and the Hart Nursery Company. We are, therefore, left to consider whether the findings of the court support the judgment. It was found that neither the nursery corporation nor the bank assumed or agreed to pay the note of plaintiff in error. We have examined the conclusions of fact and cannot say that the judgment is not sustained by them.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 P. 1126, 66 Kan. 784, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coryell-v-bank-of-fort-scott-kan-1903.