Emporia Mutual Loan & Saving Ass'n v. Atkinson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Emporia Mutual Loan & Saving Ass'n v. Atkinson

66 P. 995, 63 Kan. 848, 1901 Kan. LEXIS 237

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 7, 1901

DocketNo. 12,261

StatusPublished

This text of 66 P. 995 (Emporia Mutual Loan & Saving Ass'n v. Atkinson) 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

Emporia Mutual Loan & Saving Ass'n v. Atkinson, 66 P. 995, 63 Kan. 848, 1901 Kan. LEXIS 237 (kan 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error, a building and loan association, to recover certain sums of money deposited with the latter by the former, and evidenced by certificates of deposit and written agreements of repayment. The certificates and agreements promised repayment according to a specified order of priority between the different ■depositors and certificate holders in the association, and the defendant’s answer averred that the contract period for payment had not yet matured. Whether or not it had matured could not be told from the paper in question. A demurrer to the answer for insufficiency of facts to constitute a defense was sustained. This was manifest error. The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, with directions to overrule .the demurrer.'

Loster, O. J., Johnston, Smith, Ellis, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

The defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error, a building and loan association, to recover certain sums of money deposited with the latter by the former, and evidenced by certificates of deposit and written agreements of repayment. The certificates and agreements promised repayment according to a specified order of priority between the different ■depositors and certificate holders in the association, and the defendant’s answer averred that the contract period for payment had not yet matured. Whether or not it had matured could not be told from the paper in question. A demurrer to the answer for insufficiency of facts to constitute a defense was sustained. This was manifest error. The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, with directions to overrule .the demurrer.'

Loster, O. J., Johnston, Smith, Ellis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 P. 995, 63 Kan. 848, 1901 Kan. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emporia-mutual-loan-saving-assn-v-atkinson-kan-1901.