Winfield National Bank v. Maurer

Supreme Court of Kansas

Winfield National Bank v. Maurer

79 P. 131, 70 Kan. 891, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 71

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJanuary 7, 1905

DocketNo. 13,871

StatusPublished

This text of 79 P. 131 (Winfield National Bank v. Maurer) 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

Winfield National Bank v. Maurer, 79 P. 131, 70 Kan. 891, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 71 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

R. 0. Maurer gave to E. B. Rogers a promissory note, which Rogers indorsed to the Winfield National Bank. Rogers and the cashier of the bank, William E. Otis, were engaged in the cattle business under an arrangement by which profits were to'be divided. Near the time the note matured Rogers purchased of Maurer some feed for the cattle belonging to himself and Otis, In settling for the feed the amount of the-note was deducted, and a check on the bank was given by Rogers for the balance. Some years afterward the bank sued Maurer on the note, and a plea of payment was interposed.

On the trial evidence was introduced to the effect that immediately after it was effected Rogers notified Otis of the settlement with Maurer for the feed purchased, and Otis agreed with Rogers to return the note to Maurer. Numerous circumstances were proved tending to establish the fact that Otis acted for the bank in reference to different matters connected with the cattle transactions disclosed, including the satisfaction of the note in controversy. The court instructed the jury that, if Otis in fact represented the bank, the bank would be bound by his conduct. The jury found for Maurer, and complaint is now made of the evidence referred to and the instruction of the court concerning it.

[892]*892From the foregoing statement it is apparent that the real question in the case is that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The instruction of the court was correct, upon the theory under which the evidence was offered, and the evidence was proper under the same theory. It is the opinion of the court that the record discloses some substantial evidence from which it fairly may be inferred that the bank was bound. Therefore, the .judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

R. 0. Maurer gave to E. B. Rogers a promissory note, which Rogers indorsed to the Winfield National Bank. Rogers and the cashier of the bank, William E. Otis, were engaged in the cattle business under an arrangement by which profits were to'be divided. Near the time the note matured Rogers purchased of Maurer some feed for the cattle belonging to himself and Otis, In settling for the feed the amount of the-note was deducted, and a check on the bank was given by Rogers for the balance. Some years afterward the bank sued Maurer on the note, and a plea of payment was interposed.

On the trial evidence was introduced to the effect that immediately after it was effected Rogers notified Otis of the settlement with Maurer for the feed purchased, and Otis agreed with Rogers to return the note to Maurer. Numerous circumstances were proved tending to establish the fact that Otis acted for the bank in reference to different matters connected with the cattle transactions disclosed, including the satisfaction of the note in controversy. The court instructed the jury that, if Otis in fact represented the bank, the bank would be bound by his conduct. The jury found for Maurer, and complaint is now made of the evidence referred to and the instruction of the court concerning it.

[892]*892From the foregoing statement it is apparent that the real question in the case is that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The instruction of the court was correct, upon the theory under which the evidence was offered, and the evidence was proper under the same theory. It is the opinion of the court that the record discloses some substantial evidence from which it fairly may be inferred that the bank was bound. Therefore, the .judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 P. 131, 70 Kan. 891, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winfield-national-bank-v-maurer-kan-1905.