Kischman v. Scott

Supreme Court of Kansas

Kischman v. Scott

68 P. 1129, 64 Kan. 877, 1902 Kan. LEXIS 292

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 8, 1902

DocketNo. 12,473

StatusPublished

This text of 68 P. 1129 (Kischman v. Scott) 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

Kischman v. Scott, 68 P. 1129, 64 Kan. 877, 1902 Kan. LEXIS 292 (kan 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The- court below found, after hearing all the evidence, which was conflicting, that the makers of the note and mortgage sued on had been absent from the state for a sufficient length of time after the note matured to prevent the statute of limitations from running. This finding is binding on this court. The claim that the note matured immediately upon its delivery, by reason of the provision in the mortgage that it should become due at once if the mortgagors failed to keep the buildings on the property insured, is without merit. The condition is that the mortgagors shall keep the buildings on the premises insured “in the sum of ,. . . dollars.” No amount being specified, we construe the language to mean that there was no agreement to insure in any amount.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The- court below found, after hearing all the evidence, which was conflicting, that the makers of the note and mortgage sued on had been absent from the state for a sufficient length of time after the note matured to prevent the statute of limitations from running. This finding is binding on this court. The claim that the note matured immediately upon its delivery, by reason of the provision in the mortgage that it should become due at once if the mortgagors failed to keep the buildings on the property insured, is without merit. The condition is that the mortgagors shall keep the buildings on the premises insured “in the sum of ,. . . dollars.” No amount being specified, we construe the language to mean that there was no agreement to insure in any amount.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 P. 1129, 64 Kan. 877, 1902 Kan. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kischman-v-scott-kan-1902.