Blair v. McQuary

Citations

• 100 Kan. 203
• 162 P. 1173
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 294

Syllabus

<p>'syllabus by the court.</p> <p>1. Promissory Note — Indorsement—Can Not be Varied by Oral Evidence. It is no defense to an action against the payees and indorsers of a promissory note that the insertion of their names as payees was a mistake and that the name of the plaintiff was intended instead, and, after noticing the mistake, that they had indorsed the note to plaintiff on his oral assurance to them that they would not be personally liable on their indorsement.</p> <p>2. Pleadings — Allegations of Fraud — Liberally Construed. Rule followed that an action or defense may be based upon proper allegations 1 of fraud and consequent damage, and when tested by demurrer such allegations are to be liberally interpreted.</p> <p>3. Note — Conspiracy to Defraud — Inducement to Forego Right to Lien. In an answer to an action on a promissory note, the defendant indorsers pleaded that they had furnished materials used in the property of their codefendant who was the maker of the note; that the plaintiff holder of the note and the defendant maker thereof conspired to induce indorsers to forego their right to a lien; that the plaintiff and their codefendant represented to the indorsers that the maker of the note was prosperous and financially responsible, and that plaintiff would give them the cash for the note in lieu of their claim and right to a lien; that relying ther.eon they waived their right to a lien and indorsed the note to plaintiff and- he paid them the cash therefor; that the representations as to the financial responsibility of the maker were false. Held, that as against a demurrer the answer sufficiently pleaded a set-off based upon the alleged fraud practiced upon the indorsers by the plaintiff holder and defendant maker of the note, and sufficiently pleaded the consequent damage sustained by the indorsers by the sacrifice of their right to a lien.</p>