Case ID: kan_17/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Horton, C. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. B. Snider, et al., v. Charles M. Koehler.
    1. Defense to Notes; Sales of Liquors without License; Failure of Proof. Where an action is brought upon three promissory notes, and the only defense made is, that the notes were given for intoxicating liquors sold in this state without a license, and the evidence does not tend to prove the defense, the trial court commits no error in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the principal and interest of the notes sued on.
    2. •--The cases of McCarty v. Gordon, and Gill v. Kaufman & Co., 16 Kas. 35, 571, Haug u. Gillett, and Williams v. Feinimam, 14 Kas. 140, 288, cited as decisive of the questions presented in the case.
    
      Error from Washington District Court.
    
    Action by Koehler on three promissory notes of $91.63 each, dated 11th December 1872, executed by J. B. Snider, F. M. Layering, and A. J. Layering, payable two, four, and six months respectively after the date thereof. Judgment was given for Koehler, at the April Term 1875, for $338.56, and costs, and the defendants bring the case here.
    
      T. J. Humes, for plaintiff in error.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Horton, C. J.:

This was an action on three promissory notes. The defense was, that the notes were given for intoxieating liquors sold in this state, without a license. A jury was impanneled by the court. Upon the completion of the evidence the court charged the jury “to figure up the amount of principal and interest due on the notes, and to find a verdict for plaintiff for that amount.” The evidence produced .by' the plaintiffs in error in the court below, and the undisputed facts, bring the case clearly within the decisions heretofore rendered by this court in Haug v. Gillett, and Williams v. Feiniman, 14 Kas. 140, 288, McCarty v. Gordon, and Gill v. Kaufman & Co., 16 Kas. 35, 571. The court below committed no error in instructing the jury to return the verdict stated in the record, as the evidence did not tend to establish any defense to the notes sued on.

The judgment will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.