Wright v. Darst
| Decision Date | 01 December 1898 |
| Docket Number | 340 |
| Parties | S. WRIGHT v. G. W. DARST |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed December 23, 1898.
Error from Crawford district court; J. S. WEST, judge. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Cogswell & Gregg, for plaintiff in error.
Morris Cliggitt, for defendant in error.
As the petition in error fails to assign for error the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the only question for our consideration is whether the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in error for the amount claimed in his petition is supported by the pleadings in the case. (National Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 691, 19 P. 626.)
This action was commenced on May 20, 1895, by the defendant in error, to recover on a promissory note alleged to have been duly indorsed to him before its maturity which note, with its indorsements, reads as follows:
This note is for endowment of Eureka College.
Special attention given to the collection of sale notes.
The Farmers Bank of Eureka.
EUREKA ILL., Jan. 2, 1892.
Three years after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the order of the Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of Eureka College One Hundred Sixty-six 67/100 Dollars, at the Farmers Bank of Eureka, with six per cent. interest per annum from date, interest payable annually.
This note belongs to the Endowment Fund of Eureka College.
$ 166.67.
Due Jan. 5, 1895.
S. WRIGHT.
INDORSED: Pay to the order of G. W. Darst. -- G. W. Darst, Treasurer of the Board of Trustees of Eureka College, Eureka, Ill.
The principal defenses set up in the verified answer were that the indorsement of the note by the treasurer of the college to himself was invalid; that the note had been given by the defendant in renewal of a former note for the same amount; that the original note was given with the express understanding and agreement between the defendant and the trustees of the college that the interest only on said note should be paid by the donor during his lifetime; and that when the note sued on herein was presented for payment by the National Bank of Pittsburg, Kan., the defendant tendered to said bank the interest due and a new note in renewal of the note in controversy, which tender was refused. The original note was set out in the answer. It was dated January 2, 1894, and was a promise to pay to the treasurer of Eureka College, on or before five years from its date, the sum of $ 166.67, with six per cent. interest, payable annually. By its express terms, the note was to be void if the college should be removed from or cease to be conducted as an institution of learning in the village of Eureka. It also provided that it should become due and payable in the event of the death of the maker thereof prior to its maturity, or if the interest thereon should not be promptly paid when due and called for; and that "the maker of this note shall have the privilege of renewing the same at maturity, subject to the same conditions and at the same rate of interest as above mentioned." The indorsements on the original note showed payment of interest thereon for the years 1884 to 1890, inclusive, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial