Goodrich v. Dingman

Supreme Court of Kansas

Goodrich v. Dingman

112 P. 105, 83 Kan. 809, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 263

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 10, 1910

DocketNo. 16,709

StatusPublished

This text of 112 P. 105 (Goodrich v. Dingman) 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

Goodrich v. Dingman, 112 P. 105, 83 Kan. 809, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 263 (kan 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an action to recover on a note given by the appellee to the appellant, wherein the appellee pleaded as a set-off the price of a sow sold by him to the appellant. The demurrer to the evidence of the appellee was properly overruled. The testimony of an agreement to purchase, the purchase at the sale by one claiming to act for the appellant and the acceptance of the sow by the appellant when she was shipped to him warranted the inference of the jury that a purchase was made by the appellant and that a liability for the price arose.

The admission of what occurred at the sale, including the-[810]*810memorandum of the clerk, is no ground for reversal. If the foundation for its introduction was not properly laid when the testimony was received, there was sufficient basis for its admission before the testimony was closed. That testimony may have been received out of order is not a good ground of complaint.

There was sufficient foundation to authorize the admission of secondary evidence of the letter Written by the appellant’s agent.

No material error being found, the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an action to recover on a note given by the appellee to the appellant, wherein the appellee pleaded as a set-off the price of a sow sold by him to the appellant. The demurrer to the evidence of the appellee was properly overruled. The testimony of an agreement to purchase, the purchase at the sale by one claiming to act for the appellant and the acceptance of the sow by the appellant when she was shipped to him warranted the inference of the jury that a purchase was made by the appellant and that a liability for the price arose.

The admission of what occurred at the sale, including the-[810]*810memorandum of the clerk, is no ground for reversal. If the foundation for its introduction was not properly laid when the testimony was received, there was sufficient basis for its admission before the testimony was closed. That testimony may have been received out of order is not a good ground of complaint.

There was sufficient foundation to authorize the admission of secondary evidence of the letter Written by the appellant’s agent.

No material error being found, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 P. 105, 83 Kan. 809, 1911 Kan. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrich-v-dingman-kan-1910.