State Bank of Commerce v. Riley-Leonard Live Stock Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

State Bank of Commerce v. Riley-Leonard Live Stock Co.

99 P. 1135, 79 Kan. 857

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 12, 1909

DocketNo. 15,737

StatusPublished

This text of 99 P. 1135 (State Bank of Commerce v. Riley-Leonard Live Stock Co.) 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

State Bank of Commerce v. Riley-Leonard Live Stock Co., 99 P. 1135, 79 Kan. 857 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The bank commenced this action in the district court of Marion county to recover judgment for money loaned to the defendant in error. The only question involved in the controversy is whether the loan was made to a partnership of which the defendant in error was a member, or to George T. Donaldson, who obtained the money. This was a question of fact, which has been decided by a jury upon conflicting testimony, and this court can not examine into the merits of such finding. The money was neither obtained nor used for partnership purposes. It was used to pay the individual debt of Donaldson, who obtained the money. Some of the instructions are criticised, but in view of the evidence presented in the case we do not think the criticism justifiable. In our view the instructions fairly presented the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The bank commenced this action in the district court of Marion county to recover judgment for money loaned to the defendant in error. The only question involved in the controversy is whether the loan was made to a partnership of which the defendant in error was a member, or to George T. Donaldson, who obtained the money. This was a question of fact, which has been decided by a jury upon conflicting testimony, and this court can not examine into the merits of such finding. The money was neither obtained nor used for partnership purposes. It was used to pay the individual debt of Donaldson, who obtained the money. Some of the instructions are criticised, but in view of the evidence presented in the case we do not think the criticism justifiable. In our view the instructions fairly presented the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 P. 1135, 79 Kan. 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-of-commerce-v-riley-leonard-live-stock-co-kan-1909.