Davis v. Melvin

Supreme Court of Kansas

Davis v. Melvin

131 P. 1195, 89 Kan. 695, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 101

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 10, 1913

DocketNo. 17,995

StatusPublished

This text of 131 P. 1195 (Davis v. Melvin) 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

Davis v. Melvin, 131 P. 1195, 89 Kan. 695, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 101 (kan 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

If the jury believed the evidence produced by the defendant instead of that produced by the plaintiff, they were abundantly justified in drawing the inferences embodied in the second and third findings of fact. The evidence for the defendant is not inherently incredible. It was believed by the jury, who saw and heard the witnesses, and the jury’s estimation of it has been approved by the trial court. Consequently this court will not interfere.

It is true that the defendant did not offer to return the policies in the sense of making a tender of them, but when the agent said he would like for the • defendant to keep the policies, that they were a good investment, and that he could fix it up all right for her, she told him she could do nothing of the kind. The difference-between offering to return the policies and declaring that she could not keep them when asked to do so is not so great as to deprive finding No. 6 of all support. Certainly passion and prejudice on the part of the jury are not disclosed.

The question whether or not the defendant was bound by the receipts and the certificate which she signed did not depend upon her reading or not reading them, but upon whether or not her conduct was induced by fraud; deceit, and false representations.

The jury were adequately and correctly instructed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

If the jury believed the evidence produced by the defendant instead of that produced by the plaintiff, they were abundantly justified in drawing the inferences embodied in the second and third findings of fact. The evidence for the defendant is not inherently incredible. It was believed by the jury, who saw and heard the witnesses, and the jury’s estimation of it has been approved by the trial court. Consequently this court will not interfere.

It is true that the defendant did not offer to return the policies in the sense of making a tender of them, but when the agent said he would like for the • defendant to keep the policies, that they were a good investment, and that he could fix it up all right for her, she told him she could do nothing of the kind. The difference-between offering to return the policies and declaring that she could not keep them when asked to do so is not so great as to deprive finding No. 6 of all support. Certainly passion and prejudice on the part of the jury are not disclosed.

The question whether or not the defendant was bound by the receipts and the certificate which she signed did not depend upon her reading or not reading them, but upon whether or not her conduct was induced by fraud; deceit, and false representations.

The jury were adequately and correctly instructed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 P. 1195, 89 Kan. 695, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-melvin-kan-1913.