Murchison v. Nies

Citations

• 87 Kan. 77
• 123 P. 750
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Promissory Note — Fraud—No Consideration. Upon an examination of the testimony, it is held to be sufficient to support a general finding that the execution of the note in suit was procured by fraud in which the holder participated, and also that it was without' consideration.</p> <p>2. - When Fraud and No Consideration Are Available as Defenses. An agreement by the makers of the note for its transfer from the payee to another, and recognizing its validity, does not preclude the defense that its execution wais fraudulently procured and that it was without consideration, where the makers were not' aware of the fraud nor of the want of consideration when the agreement was made, and where the indorsee and holder was acquainted with these facts.</p> <p>3. - Same. The rule that an equity arising in favor of the maker and against the payee of a promissory note after the transfer of the note can not be interposed as against an action thereon by the indorsee is not applicable here, as the infirmities in the note, of which the indorsee had notice, existed when it was transferred to him.</p>