Exchange State Bank v. Jacobs

Citations

• 97 Kan. 798
• 156 P. 771
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 400

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. PLEADINGS' — Pleading a Conclusion of Law — Motion to Strike Out. Pleadings being for the information of the court and the litigants and not for submission to the jury, it is not ordinarily reversible error to overrule a motion to strike out a defense which pleads a conclusion of law even though such pleading be an erroneous statement of law.</p> <p>2. Partnership Note- — Liability of Partners — Competent Evidence. Where, in a defense to a partnership note, the testimony of a witness was offered which tended to show that the note in question was a mere renewal of the individual obligation of one of the partners, it was proper to cross-examine the witness with a view to developing these facts completely and precisely, and sustaining an objection to such cross-examination was erroneous and prejudicial.</p> <p>3. Same. In an action to recover on a note alleged to have been executed on behalf of a partnership, where evidence of a defendant partner was given to the effect that owing to the confused state of the partnership accounts the defendant and his partner “could not complete the partnership,” when the partnership had in fact been formed and had been in effect for three months at the time to which the evidence referred, such evidence was incompetent and its admission tended to, confuse and mislead the jury as to the legal responsibility of the defendant as a partner.</p> <p>4. Partnership — Implied Liability of Each Partner- — -Partnership Notes. Proof of a trading partnership having been established, the authority of each partner to execute promissory notes in furtherance of the partnership business is implied by law, and it was incompetent and prejudicial to permit a defendant partner to testify before the jury that he had not in fact authorized his partner to sign any notes for the partnership firm.</p> <p>¡5. Same — Partnership Note — Trial — Evidence — Demurrer. Although the lawful defenses of a partner sued on a partnership