Wiggin v. Dickson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Wiggin v. Dickson

101 P. 1133, 80 Kan. 797, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 170

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMay 8, 1909

DocketNo. 15,567

StatusPublished

This text of 101 P. 1133 (Wiggin v. Dickson) 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

Wiggin v. Dickson, 101 P. 1133, 80 Kan. 797, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 170 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ctiriam:

The proceedings were not brought to this court in time to review the alleged error in refusing to discharge the attachment. There was no reversible error in sustaining the objection to the question asked as to the agreement concerning the amount remaining due on the chattel mortgage. It is apparent from all the evidence that defendants were relying, not upon a subsequent agreement, but upon an understanding which they claimed to have had at the time the written instrument was executed, to the effect that the mortgagee would make some reduction on the rent. Besides, the defense pleaded was payment, not a subsequent agreement. The jury could not have been misled by the instruction that the cause of action on the note was admitted, which only meant that the execution of the note was admitted. The other instructions fairly stated the issues. We .find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Ctiriam:

The proceedings were not brought to this court in time to review the alleged error in refusing to discharge the attachment. There was no reversible error in sustaining the objection to the question asked as to the agreement concerning the amount remaining due on the chattel mortgage. It is apparent from all the evidence that defendants were relying, not upon a subsequent agreement, but upon an understanding which they claimed to have had at the time the written instrument was executed, to the effect that the mortgagee would make some reduction on the rent. Besides, the defense pleaded was payment, not a subsequent agreement. The jury could not have been misled by the instruction that the cause of action on the note was admitted, which only meant that the execution of the note was admitted. The other instructions fairly stated the issues. We .find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 P. 1133, 80 Kan. 797, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggin-v-dickson-kan-1909.