Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Headrick

Supreme Court of Kansas

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Headrick

289 P. 427, 131 Kan. 199, 1930 Kan. LEXIS 220

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJuly 5, 1930

DocketNo. 29,443

StatusPublished

This text of 289 P. 427 (Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Headrick) 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

Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Headrick, 289 P. 427, 131 Kan. 199, 1930 Kan. LEXIS 220 (kan 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to recover on a promissory note for $637, given in renewal of a note given for a tractor which defendant used for three years. Defendant pleaded and testified he had a settlement with an agent of plaintiff who had authority to settle the indebtedness, and the agent, who did not have the note with him, agreed that if plaintiff would pay $20.50 on another note the note sued on would be considered settled and would be canceled and returned to defendant. The verified reply admitted the agent had authority to collect, but denied he had authority to settle except for cash. There was no evidence showing or tending to show the agent' had authority to do what defendant claimed he did, and judgment was properly rendered for plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

Jochems, J., not sitting.

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 for $637, given in renewal of a note given for a tractor which defendant used for three years. Defendant pleaded and testified he had a settlement with an agent of plaintiff who had authority to settle the indebtedness, and the agent, who did not have the note with him, agreed that if plaintiff would pay $20.50 on another note the note sued on would be considered settled and would be canceled and returned to defendant. The verified reply admitted the agent had authority to collect, but denied he had authority to settle except for cash. There was no evidence showing or tending to show the agent' had authority to do what defendant claimed he did, and judgment was properly rendered for plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

Jochems, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 P. 427, 131 Kan. 199, 1930 Kan. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minneapolis-threshing-machine-co-v-headrick-kan-1930.