Snider v. Koehler
This text of 17 Kan. 432 (Snider v. Koehler) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This was an action on three promissory notes. The defense was, that the notes were given for intoxi[433]*433eating liquors sold in this state, without a license. A jury was impanneled by the court. Upon the completion of the evidence the court charged the jury “to figure up the amount of principal and interest due on the notes, and to find a verdict for plaintiff for that amount.” The evidence produced .by' the plaintiffs in error in the court below, and the undisputed facts, bring the case clearly within the decisions heretofore rendered by this court in Haug v. Gillett, and Williams v. Feiniman, 14 Kas. 140, 288, McCarty v. Gordon, and Gill v. Kaufman & Co., 16 Kas. 35, 571. The court below committed no error in instructing the jury to return the verdict stated in the record, as the evidence did not tend to establish any defense to the notes sued on.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Kan. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snider-v-koehler-kan-1877.