Liebau v. Miller

Supreme Court of Kansas

Liebau v. Miller

132 P. 173, 89 Kan. 697, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 103

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 10, 1913

DocketNo. 18,187

StatusPublished

This text of 132 P. 173 (Liebau v. Miller) 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

Liebau v. Miller, 132 P. 173, 89 Kan. 697, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 103 (kan 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cwriam':

The plaintiff testified that before the second note for $800 was given she apprised the defendant of the contract with Rogers which tainted -the consideration for the note. The plaintiff’s testimony was ample to show duress. The .jury evidently believed her story and followed -instruction No. 5, which correctly stated the law. In other respects the jury were properly instructed.

The defendant was not prejudiced by any of the rulings regarding the admission of testimony. Of the instructions requested, No. 3 was palpably bad. It is not necessary to constitute duress that fear o'f death, 'or bodily harm or imprisonment be engendered. The rights of the defendant as a bona fide holder, if he were such, were well protected 'by the instructions given. No. '2 was immaterial ‘because the plaintiff did move promptly, and No. 4 is ho longer of consequence, Since the general verdict included a finding that the defendant participated in the duress.

The verdict is well 'supported by the evidence, 'and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Cwriam':

The plaintiff testified that before the second note for $800 was given she apprised the defendant of the contract with Rogers which tainted -the consideration for the note. The plaintiff’s testimony was ample to show duress. The .jury evidently believed her story and followed -instruction No. 5, which correctly stated the law. In other respects the jury were properly instructed.

The defendant was not prejudiced by any of the rulings regarding the admission of testimony. Of the instructions requested, No. 3 was palpably bad. It is not necessary to constitute duress that fear o'f death, 'or bodily harm or imprisonment be engendered. The rights of the defendant as a bona fide holder, if he were such, were well protected 'by the instructions given. No. '2 was immaterial ‘because the plaintiff did move promptly, and No. 4 is ho longer of consequence, Since the general verdict included a finding that the defendant participated in the duress.

The verdict is well 'supported by the evidence, 'and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 P. 173, 89 Kan. 697, 1913 Kan. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebau-v-miller-kan-1913.