Roebuck v. Citizens Bank
George B. Roebuck v. The Citizens Bank of Altoona
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam:
The answer in this case presented but one issue —the ownership of the paper. The instrument spoke for itself upon the question of what it was. The indorsements specified did not give notice of the matters urged as defenses. The parol agreement pleaded changed the terms of the note, which was a complete instrument, and evidence respecting it was not admissible. (Thisler v. Mackey, 65 Kan. 464 , 70 Pac. 334 ; Railway Co. v. Truskett, 67 Kan. 26, 35 , 72 Pac. 562 ; Railway Co. v. *863 Vanordstrand, 67 Kan. 386 , 73 Pac. 113 .) It was not alleged that the stallion was purchased for a specific purpose for which he was inefficient, and no warranty was pleaded. (Ehrsam v. Brown, 64 Kan. 466 , 67 Pac. 867 ; Kinkel v. Winne, 67 Kan. 100 , 72 Pac. 548 , 62 L. R. A. 596.) It was not alleged that plaintiff purchased with knowledge of other defenses. The plaintiff produced ample evidence to warrant recovery, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.