Palmer v. Hummer

10 Kan. 464
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 Kan. 464 (Palmer v. Hummer) 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
Palmer v. Hummer, 10 Kan. 464 (kan 1872).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Kingman, C. J.:

According to the principles settled in

the case of Jones v. Eisler, 3 Kas., 134, the writing sued on in this case was due in six months. It was payable in that time, or it might never become payable at all. It cannot be inferred from the note that it was the intention of the pax'ties that it should not be paid unless the maker should realize the amount of the patent which he purchased. The paper not being susceptible of such a construction, it must have become due at the end of six months. It is not a contract to do a thing on one day or another, in which case the party who is under obligation to do the thing has an election as to the day. It is, taken literally, an acknowledgment of indebtedness for value received with a promise to pay the indebtedness upon a certain day, or on a contingency that might never happen. The note does not authorize a conclusion that it was the purpose of the parties thereto that it should in any event never be paid. Such being the tenor of the note, it must be held as due in six months. The judgment is reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Greenstreet v. Cheatum
161 P. 596 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1916)
Stewart & Johnson v. Herron
77 Ohio St. (N.S.) 130 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1907)
Charlton v. Reed
16 N.W. 64 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Kan. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-hummer-kan-1872.