Peacock v. Boyle

Supreme Court of Kansas

Peacock v. Boyle

41 Kan. 492

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 Kan. 492 (Peacock v. Boyle) 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

Peacock v. Boyle, 41 Kan. 492 (kan 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

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

Per Curiam:

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Kan. 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peacock-v-boyle-kan-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack