Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Kaw Valley State Bank & Trust Co. v. Riddle

Supreme Court of Kansas
549 P.2d 927 (1976)


Facts

John Riddle (defendant) engaged in numerous transactions with Co-Mac, Inc. (Co-Mac) to purchase construction equipment. Several of these purchases were on credit, pursuant to promissory notes. The Kaw Valley State Bank and Trust Company (Kaw Valley) (plaintiff) purchased over 250 promissory notes from Co-Mac over a 10-year period, including the promissory notes from Riddle. On May 11, 1971, Riddle entered into a promissory note to purchase some Caterpillar equipment. However, prior to the delivery, Riddle and Co-Mac agreed to cancel the agreement and replace the equipment with different machinery. Co-Mac agreed to destroy the May 11, 1971 note. This was not done, and the note was sold to Kaw Valley. Riddle fell behind on the payments and met with Kaw Valley and Co-Mac to consolidate the debt and reduce the monthly payments. Kaw Valley presented eight notes at the meeting, and Riddle objected to one of those, because the equipment had been returned to Co-Mac. Kaw Valley agreed that the note objected to was not outstanding and cancelled the balance. The seven remaining notes were consolidated into a renewal note on February 24, 1972. The May 11, 1971 note was not included in the eight notes presented by Kaw Valley in the meeting and was, therefore, not included in the renewal note. Eventually, Kaw Valley sued Riddle for the amount outstanding on the renewal note and the May 11, 1971 note. The trial court ruled that Kaw Valley was not a holder in due course (HDC) of the May 11, 1971 note.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Fromme, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.