Bliss v. Young
| Decision Date | 01 February 1898 |
| Docket Number | 159 |
| Citation | 52 P. 577,7 Kan.App. 728 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. BLISS v. JOSEPH R. YOUNG |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed March 14, 1898.
Error from Barton district court; J. H. BAILEY, judge. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Wheeler & Switzer, for plaintiff in error.
Ira E Lloyd, for defendant in error.
This action was commenced in the district court of Barton county by the plaintiff in error to recover a judgment against the defendant in error upon a non-negotiable note of $ 600 and an interest coupon of $ 21 annexed to and bearing even date with the principal note. The principal note is numbered 6171, and the coupon recites that it is for six months' interest on $ 600 loaned, as appears by bond No. 6171. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and plaintiff brings the case here for review.
The defendant in error alleges that the note, coupon and mortgage were non-negotiable and owned by the Western Farm Mortgage Company and were a loan of its money, but that they were taken in the name of W. J. Neill as agent of the company, and were for its use and benefit. This is admitted by the plaintiff in error. Shortly after the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage they were assigned to the plaintiff in error, Bliss. Young paid the interest coupons as they became due to the Western Farm Mortgage Company, or to its successor, the Western Farm Mortgage Trust Company, and the coupons were returned to him, except the last one. He paid the amount of the principal note and the last coupon to the Western Farm Mortgage Trust Company, but the note and coupon were not returned to him. These payments were all made in pursuance of notices and demands for payment sent out by said companies. The assignment of the mortgage to Bliss was not placed of record in the office of the register of deeds of Barton county, nor did Bliss or either of the companies ever notify Young that Bliss owned the note and coupons. The court found that Young did not know that they were owned by Bliss until some time after he paid the principal note and the last coupon.
The court found for the defendant, and ordered the cancellation of the note, coupon and mortgage and the satisfaction of the mortgage.
The note being non-negotiable, and the maker having neither actual or constructive notice of its assignment, he is protected in making payment to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seibold v. Ruble
...in controversy was made before maturity takes the case without the influence of the decision in Hart v. Freeman." ¶3 In Bliss v. Young, 7 Kan. App. 728, 52 P. 577, neither the last coupon nor the principal note was returned to the payer. The notices were sent out by the Western Farm Mortgag......
-
Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co. v. Robins
...to the original payee at the place stipulated in the note and mortgage. Lockrow v. Cline , 46 P. 720; Warren v. Gruwell 48 P. 205; Bliss v. Young 52 P. 577; Fowle v. Outcalt 67 P. 889." ¶3 Also in Randall Company v. Glendenning, 19 Okla. 475, 92 P. 158, this court said:"A transfer to an inn......
-
Seibold v. Ruble
...note in controversy was made before maturity takes the case without the influence of the decision in Hart v. Freeman.'' In Bliss v. Young, 7 Kan. App. 728, 52 P. 577, neither last coupon nor the principal note were returned to the payer. The notices were sent out by the Western Farm Mortgag......
-
Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co. v. Robins
... ... Lockrow v ... Cline [4 Kan. App. 716], 46 P. 720; Warren v ... Gruwell [5 Kan. App. 523] 48 P. 205; Bliss v ... Young [7 Kan. App. 728] 52 P. 577; Fowle v ... Outcalt [64 ... Kan. 352] 67 P. 889." ... [158 P. 930.] ... Also in Randall Company v ... ...