Elliott v. Watts

213 P. 665, 113 Kan. 129, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 348
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedMarch 10, 1923
DocketNo. 24,301
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 P. 665 (Elliott v. Watts) 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
Elliott v. Watts, 213 P. 665, 113 Kan. 129, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 348 (kan 1923).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, C. J.:

The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants to recover $948.86 upon a promissory note which defendants had executed. The defendants pleaded that the note had been-paid, and their defense was sustained by the verdict of the jury. Plaintiff appeals.

The only question presented on the appeal is that the evidence does not warrant the verdict that was rendered. There was evidence tending to support the finding and there was a strong contrary showing made by the plaintiff. It would serve no good purpose to set forth the evidence at large, which is included in the record. It is enough to say that it has been carefully examined, and while there are some inconsistencies in that of the defendants, who prevailed, it must be held that the matter of payment was a fair question for the determination of the jury. In that state of the record the finding is conclusive on this court and, therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Holland Oil & Gas Co. v. Holland
220 P. 1044 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
213 P. 665, 113 Kan. 129, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-watts-kan-1923.