Advance Rumely Thresher Co. v. West

Citations

• 108 Kan. 875
• 196 P. 1061
• 1921 Kan. LEXIS 288

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Promissory Note — Action by Indorsee — Holder in Due Course — Erroneous Instruction. In an action by an indorsee of promissory notes given for the purchase price of a farm tractor where the answer and cross-petition set up failure of consideration because of a breach of warranty in the contract of sale and alleged that plaintiff was not a holder in due course, held, that it was error to instruct that if the plaintiff purchased the notes with knowledge of the terms and condiditions of the contract under which the tractor was sold, the judgment should be for the defendant. (Bank v. Hildebrand, 103 Kan. 705, 177 Pac. 6.)</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence Shows Indorsee To Be Holder in Due Course. It is further held that the depositions taken by the plaintiff and offered in evidence by the defendant and also by the plaintiff show that the plaintiff was a holder of the notes in due course, and there being no testimony to contradict the depositions, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the amount due on the notes, notwithstanding the general verdict in defendant’s favor.</p>