Stiles v. Steele

• Decision Date: 05 November 1887
• Citation: 15 P. 561,37 Kan. 552
• Parties: FRANK G. STILES, et al., v. JAMES W. STEELE
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

15 P. 561

37 Kan. 552

FRANK G. STILES, et al., v. JAMES W. STEELE

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 5, 1887

Error from Shawnee District Court.

ACTION upon a promissory note. On November 11, 1885, a judgment for $ 307, and costs, was rendered for plaintiff Steele. The defendants, Stiles and Manspeaker, bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Judgement affirmed.

L. J Webb, for plaintiffs in error.

Case & Moss, for defendant in error.

JOHNSTON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

This was an action to recover upon a promissory note executed on November 1, 1883, by Frank G. Stiles and W. W. Manspeaker in favor of Watson & Thrapp, for the sum of $ 250, payable in one day after date, with interest at twelve per cent. per annum. Prior to the commencement of the action the note was duly sold and transferred to the plaintiff, James W. Steele. The execution and delivery of the note were admitted, and the indorsement and sale were not questioned; but it was alleged by way of defense, that the note was given in pursuance of a contract whereby James W. Steele agreed to sell a tract of land to Francis L. Stiles for the sum of $ 10,000, and the note was given as a part of the purchase-price of the land sold. Among the terms stated in the agreement of sale were that the balance of the purchase-price should be paid within twenty days from the date of the agreement, or as soon as the deed was signed and delivered, and an abstract furnished showing a clear title in Steele. It was also conditioned that in case the title was not shown to be perfect, or the first party failed to deliver the deed upon demand, then the $ 250 paid on the purchase, and for which the promissory note in suit was given, should be refunded. When the testimony was concluded, the court advised the jury that the defendants below had wholly failed to establish the defense set up, and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount shown to be due upon the note. This ruling is the ground of error assigned for the reversal of the judgment.

If the testimony submitted had no tendency to establish the theory of the defense, or a proposition essential to the maintenance of the defense, it was the duty of the court to direct the verdict. The defense was a failure of consideration because Steele had not a good title to the land agreed to be sold and further, had failed to execute and deliver a sufficient...