Gross v. Funk

20 Kan. 655
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 20 Kan. 655 (Gross v. Funk) 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
Gross v. Funk, 20 Kan. 655 (kan 1878).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

Where due notice of the time and place of settling and signing a case-made for the supreme court has been given to the adverse party, such party cannot ignore such notice, or treat it as a nullity, although the time fixed in such notice for settling and signing such case may be earlier than the ease could properly be settled and signed. (Nelson v. Becker, 14 Kas. 509, 510, and cases there cited.) And where the judge of the court, in the absence of the adverse-party, and without any objection from him or from any other person, settles and signs the case upon such a notice, and nothing further is done concerning the same, the supreme court will, in the absence of other irregularities, treat the case as valid.

A finding made and entered in the case-made by the judge while settling and signing such case, showing that such notice has been given, is sufficient evidence, prima facie, -to prove the fact that such notice was given. (Haynes v. Cowen, 15 Kas. 637, and opinion of Brewer, J., p. 645, 646.)

The defense of usury cannot be set up against a negotiable promissory note while in the hands of an innocent indorsee who purchased the same before maturity. (Day v. Walker, 16 Kas. 326, 332; Holden v. Clark, 16 Kas. 346; Rahm v. Bridge Co., 16 Kas. 530; Mechanic’s Bank v. Crow, 66 N.Y. [657]*65785; Cicot v. Gagrin, 2 Mich. 381; 1 Hill. on Mort. 574; 1 Pars. Notes, 279, 280; Gen. Stat., ch. 14, §3.

The judgment of the court below will be reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

American Surety Co. v. Wolsey
1933 OK 165 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Ranney-Davis Mercantile Co. v. Morris
1923 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
State v. Butler
186 P. 55 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1919)
Miskovsky v. Vrba
1919 OK 2 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Dietrich
1918 OK 203 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Hubbard v. Meek
160 P. 1128 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Territory of New Mexico v. Cordova
11 N.M. 367 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1902)
The Westchester Fire Insurance v. Coverdale
58 P. 1029 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1899)
State v. Shelton
49 P. 702 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1897)
State v. Baker
46 P. 947 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1896)
Christie v. Carter
42 P. 708 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1895)
Jones v. Charles P. Kellogg & Co.
51 Kan. 263 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1893)
State v. Gutekunst
24 Kan. 252 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Kan. 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gross-v-funk-kan-1878.