First National Bank v. Parkhurst

Supreme Court of Kansas

First National Bank v. Parkhurst

54 Kan. 159

DecidedJuly 15, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 54 Kan. 159 (First National Bank v. Parkhurst) 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

First National Bank v. Parkhurst, 54 Kan. 159 (kan 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam:

We had no intention in disposing of this case to set aside the well-known rule that the burden of proof is upon the party who has the affirmative side of the issues. All that we decided, or intended to decide, upon the matter discussed on the rehearing, was that the trial court committed no material error under the facts disclosed in the record in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the burden of proof as prayed for. We recognized merely the rule stated in Atlas Bank v. Doyle, 9 R. I. 76, cited in the brief of plaintiff in error.

“Tf the defendant, not disputing the original consideration [of negotiable paper in the hands of a pledgee], takes some new ground of defense — for example, payment, fail[160]*160ure of consideration, and the like — then the burden is on him to prove this matter of avoidance. Delano v. Bartlett, [6 Cush. 366]; 3 Phil, (side page), 161.”

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

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

Per Ouriam:

We had no intention in disposing of this case to set aside the well-known rule that the burden of proof is upon the party who has the affirmative side of the issues. All that we decided, or intended to decide, upon the matter discussed on the rehearing, was that the trial court committed no material error under the facts disclosed in the record in refusing to instruct the jury concerning the burden of proof as prayed for. We recognized merely the rule stated in Atlas Bank v. Doyle, 9 R. I. 76, cited in the brief of plaintiff in error.

“Tf the defendant, not disputing the original consideration [of negotiable paper in the hands of a pledgee], takes some new ground of defense — for example, payment, fail[160]*160ure of consideration, and the like — then the burden is on him to prove this matter of avoidance. Delano v. Bartlett, [6 Cush. 366]; 3 Phil, (side page), 161.”

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Kan. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-parkhurst-kan-1894.