facts constituting defense in Kansas

1967It has been said that “. . . if at the time the renewal was executed, the parties signing knew of the fraud in the original, they will be regarded as purging the contract of fraud, and cannot then plead it. . . .” (Calvin v. Sterritt, 41 Kan. 215, 220 , 21 Pac. 103 .) In Howell v. Flora, 155 Kan. 640 , 127 P. 2d 721 , we held in paragraph 5 of the syllabus: “One who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the tíme of the failure of consideration for the original note, or of false representations by the payee, or of fraud in the execution of the original note, or if he had kn

1967It has been said that “. . . if at the time the renewal was executed, the parties signing knew of the fraud in the original, they will be regarded as purging the contract of fraud, and cannot then plead it. . . .” (Calvin v. Sterritt, 41 Kan. 215, 220 , 21 Pac. 103 .) In Howell v. Flora, 155 Kan. 640 , 127 P. 2d 721 , we held in paragraph 5 of the syllabus: “One who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the tíme of the failure of consideration for the original note, or of false representations by the payee, or of fraud in the execution of the original note, or if he had kn

1899The facts constituting the defense must not only be fully stated,! but must show a legal and meritorious defense.” (See, also, Mulvaney v. Lovejoy, 37 Kan. 305 , 15 Pac. 181 .) Defendants in error admit in their petition that they were duly served with summons and that they gave it to their agent to examine, but there is no allegation in the petition of diligence ; in fact, the contrary appears.

1893(Mulvaney v. Lovejoy, 37 Kas. 305 .) To supplement and sustain the petition, plaintiff in error requests us to take notice of what is contained in the record of other cases filed in this court; but this cannot be done.

1976The petitions sufficiently pleaded the ultimate facts constituting the claim for relief (see Dawson v. Dawson, 212 Kan. 711 , 512 P. 2d 522 ).

1976The petitions sufficiently pleaded the ultimate facts constituting the claim for relief (see Dawson v. Dawson, 212 Kan. 711 , 512 P. 2d 522 ).

1967It has been said that “. . . if at the time the renewal was executed, the parties signing knew of the fraud in the original, they will be regarded as purging the contract of fraud, and cannot then plead it. . . .” (Calvin v. Sterritt, 41 Kan. 215, 220 , 21 Pac. 103 .) In Howell v. Flora, 155 Kan. 640 , 127 P. 2d 721 , we held in paragraph 5 of the syllabus: “One who gives a note in renewal of another note, with knowledge at the tíme of the failure of consideration for the original note, or of false representations by the payee, or of fraud in the execution of the original note, or if he had kn

1955In American Glycerin Co. v. Freeburne, 157 Kan. 22 , 138 P. 2d 468 , it was held: “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. 2) See also Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 .

1955In American Glycerin Co. v. Freeburne, 157 Kan. 22 , 138 P. 2d 468 , it was held: “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. 2) See also Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 .

1955In American Glycerin Co. v. Freeburne, 157 Kan. 22 , 138 P. 2d 468 , it was held: “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. 2) See also Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 .

1955In American Glycerin Co. v. Freeburne, 157 Kan. 22 , 138 P. 2d 468 , it was held: “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. 2) See also Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 .

1955Under the facts presented, defendants’ claimed right to assert the bar of the statute must be pleaded to be available as a defense (Klotz v. Board of County Commissioners, 176 Kan. 325 , 328 270 P. 2d 281 ).

1955Under the facts presented, defendants’ claimed right to assert the bar of the statute must be pleaded to be available as a defense (Klotz v. Board of County Commissioners, 176 Kan. 325 , 328 270 P. 2d 281 ).

1953S. 1935, 60-707.) “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. ¶¶[ 1, 2.) In Runnels v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 165 Kan. 571 , 195 P. 2d 571 , we also held: “A demurrer to a pleading may be employed to test the legal sufficiency of facts appearing on its face but of no others.

1953S. 1935, 60-707.) “Before a demurrer to a petition can be sustained upon the ground the action is barred by the statute of limitations, the facts constituting the bar must appear on the face of the petition and cannot be supplied from the files in the case or other records which disclose the date on which summons was served on the defendants.” (Syl. ¶¶[ 1, 2.) In Runnels v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 165 Kan. 571 , 195 P. 2d 571 , we also held: “A demurrer to a pleading may be employed to test the legal sufficiency of facts appearing on its face but of no others.

1922The facts constituting the defense should be fully stated, and from them it must appear that the defendant has an existing legal and meritorious defense.” (p. 308.) In State v. Soffietti, 90 Kan. 742 , 136 Pac. 260 , an application for a new trial was presented after the term at which the judgment was entered.

1922The facts constituting the defense should be fully stated, and from them it must appear that the defendant has an existing legal and meritorious defense.” (p. 308.) In State v. Soffietti, 90 Kan. 742 , 136 Pac. 260 , an application for a new trial was presented after the term at which the judgment was entered.

1899The facts constituting the defense must not only be fully stated,! but must show a legal and meritorious defense.” (See, also, Mulvaney v. Lovejoy, 37 Kan. 305 , 15 Pac. 181 .) Defendants in error admit in their petition that they were duly served with summons and that they gave it to their agent to examine, but there is no allegation in the petition of diligence ; in fact, the contrary appears.