Peacock v. Boyle
41 Kan. 492
Opinion
Action to recover upon a promissory note and to foreclose a land contract, assigned as security for the payment of the note. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff alleges error.
The general finding of the jury is based upon disputed facts and conflicting testimony, and, being approved by the district court, must stand. (K. P. Rly. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kas. 145.)
There is nothing substantial in the objection to the rulings of the court on the admission of testimony. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Peacock v. Boyle, 41 Kan. 492 (kan 1889).
41 Kan. 492 (Peacock v. Boyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Deets v. Smith
51 P. 581 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1897)
Sickinger v. State ex rel. Hutchins
45 Kan. 414 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1891)