120 Kan. 256 | Kan. | 1926
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This was an action on a promissory note. Plaintiff is the receiver of the bank which was the payee of the note. The gist of the pleaded defenses was that there had been a material alteration in the note since it was signed by defendant and that there was no consideration for the note. For reply the plaintiff alleged that the note had been executed by the defendant to help the derelict president of the bank to deceive the bank commissioner touching a certain excess loan held by the bank against defendant’s brother-in-law.
At the trial, defendant assumed the burden of establishing his defenses, and at the conclusion of the evidence submitted in his behalf plaintiff’s demurrer thereto was sustained, the jury discharged, and judgment entered for plaintiff. Hence this appeal.
Considered in its most favorable aspects, as all evidence must be when its sufficiency is challenged by demurrer, it seems that the defenses pleaded were fairly well established. Defendant and his
Reversed.