Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

85 Kan. 393

Peters v. McVey

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 9, 1898

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1898-04-09

<p>HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.</p> <p>Maturity op Debt — When Question for Jury. When the written contract is vague and uncertain as to when the indebtedness matures, oral evidence relating thereto is competent, and the maturity of the debt becomes a question for the jury.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1915

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-04-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1Action by the appellant to recover from R. E. McVey $3124.75, alleged to be due for merchandise purchased from them by McVey.

¶2McVey admitted the indebtedness, but alleged it was not due at the time the action was brought.

¶3The jury found that the debt was not due when the action was brought, and the notes which were taken by the plaintiffs from the defendant were accepted as payment of the amount sued on. There appears to be sufficient testimony to sustain this finding. It does not appear that the entire contract of the parties was in writing, and so far as it is in writing it is vague *394■and uncertain. .The testimony of the defendant was, therefore, admissible as to what the contract between, the parties was, and many of the facts and circumstances in the case tend to support the testimony'of the •defendant and the finding of the jury.

¶4There is nothing substantial to the objections made to the rulings upon the testimony, and we think the instructions of the court fairly presented the case to the .jury.

¶5The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

/85/kan/393 · .json · Public domain