Park v. Ensign

Citations

• 66 Kan. 50
• 71 P. 230
• 1903 Kan. LEXIS 2

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Estoppel — Principal and Surety■ — Attorney at Law. The fact that an attorney at law who is a surety on a promissory note appeared as attorney for his principals in an action brought against the latter to recover on the note, and assisted in managing and conducting their defense, does not make a judgment rendered against the principals conclusive on the attorney or his cosureties in a separate suit on the note, brought against them.</p> <p>2. -Promissory Notes — Pleading and Practice. The payee of a promissory note sued the principals and sureties - thereon for the amount of the note, and in the same petition joined a cause of action for damages recoverable against the principals alone. A demurrer to the petition on the ground of misjoinder was sustained, and, upon plaintiff’s application, separate actions were docketed against the principals and sureties, respectively, on the note, both, however, omitting the claim for damages against the principals. Held, that the severance of the causes of action in consequence of the demurrer did not estop the sureties from pleading, as a defense in the suit against them, a cause of action for damages in favor of their principals against the ^ payee of the note, or require them further to follow the progress of the suit against the principals.</p> <p>3. -Judgment — Prima Facie Evidence. A judgment recovered against the principals on a promissory note in a suit against them alone is prima facie evidence only of liability on the part of sureties in a separate action against the latter, and the sureties are not estopped by such judgment from pleading and proving a defense unsuccessfully urged by their principals.</p>