J. B. Colt Co. v. Kuttler

Supreme Court of Kansas

J. B. Colt Co. v. Kuttler

278 P. 728, 128 Kan. 497, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 363

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 6, 1929

DocketNo. 28,638

StatusPublished

This text of 278 P. 728 (J. B. Colt Co. v. Kuttler) 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

J. B. Colt Co. v. Kuttler, 278 P. 728, 128 Kan. 497, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 363 (kan 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to recover on a promissory note. The answer admitted execution of the note, but undertook to plead want of consideration, fraud and illegality. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the pleadings, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff confesses error, and some brief observations for guidance of the trial court will suffice.

Want of consideration was sufficiently pleaded. Fraud was not pleaded in the portion of the answer denominated “answer,” although it was stated that the note was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The portion of the answer denominated “cross petition” did, however, plead fraud in due form and, taken as a whole, the answer should be construed as pleading fraud as a defense. While the plea of illegality was retrenched, it tolerably disclosed what the pleader was driving at, and was sufficient, as against a motion for judgment on the pleadings, to challenge validity of the note under section 5242 of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota, 1913.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to recover on a promissory note. The answer admitted execution of the note, but undertook to plead want of consideration, fraud and illegality. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff on the pleadings, and defendant appeals.

Plaintiff confesses error, and some brief observations for guidance of the trial court will suffice.

Want of consideration was sufficiently pleaded. Fraud was not pleaded in the portion of the answer denominated “answer,” although it was stated that the note was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The portion of the answer denominated “cross petition” did, however, plead fraud in due form and, taken as a whole, the answer should be construed as pleading fraud as a defense. While the plea of illegality was retrenched, it tolerably disclosed what the pleader was driving at, and was sufficient, as against a motion for judgment on the pleadings, to challenge validity of the note under section 5242 of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota, 1913.

The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 P. 728, 128 Kan. 497, 1929 Kan. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-colt-co-v-kuttler-kan-1929.