Case Name: Andrew Miller, Appellant, v. Lewis Buss et al., Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1918-07-06
Citations: 103 Kan. 338
Docket Number: No. 21,426
Parties: Andrew Miller, Appellant, v. Lewis Buss et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 338–338

Head Matter:
No. 21,426.
Andrew Miller, Appellant, v. Lewis Buss et al., Appellees.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
Promissory Note — Conditional Obligation — Evidence. The evidence examined, and held not to impeach the certainty of the obligation to’ pay the note sued on, but to show that the note was executed on condition.
Appeal from Cowley district court; Oliver P. Fuller, judge.
Opinion filed July 6, 1918.
Affirmed.
Fred Stanley, Claude C. Stanley, Benjamin F. Hegler and George Siefkin, all of Wichita, for the appellant.
J. E. Torrance, and O. W. Torrance, both of Winfield, for the appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Burch, J. :
The action was one to recover on a promissory note. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
The defense was that the note was executed on condition, and that the condition on which liability depended had not occurred. The evidence was conflicting, and besides that, the plaintiff contended the evidence adduced in support of the defense did no more than impeach the certainty of the obligation to pay. The solution of the controversy, therefore, depended on what facts were established, and the legal effect of the established facts.
The evidence most favorable to the defendant indicated that the note was given to take effect on condition that a tract of land be sold for an amount greater than the defendant's investment in it, equal to the face of the note. It was not disputed that the land had not been sold. Under these circumstances the note had not become an enforceable obligation.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.