White v. Kemper Military School

4 Citing cases

  1. Leonard v. Woodward

    305 Mass. 332 (Mass. 1940)   Cited 25 times

    Alley v. Butte Western Mining Co. 77 Mont. 477. Piner v. Brittain, 165 N.C. 401. First State Bank of Hazen v. Radke, 51 N.D. 246. Plaza Hotel Co. v. Hotel Stratton, 132 Neb. 396. White v. Kemper Military School, 132 Okla. 189. Kemppainen v. Suomi Temperance Society, 128 Orc. 643. Shaw v. McShane, 50 S.W.2d 278, 281 (Texas Commission of Appeals). Greenwood v. Lamson, 106 Vt. 37, 43. Gleason v. Brown, 129 Wn. 196, 201.

  2. Hogue v. McClain County Nat. Bank

    47 P.2d 575 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 3 times

    The denial of consideration is ineffective, if, as defendants in error contend, the special facts pleaded in the answer show a consideration. White v. Kemper Military School, 132 Okla. 189, 270 P. 31. Defendants in error argue that the answer affirmatively shows that there was a consideration, but we are not informed what it was. Consideration for a note may be anything that would support a simple contract.

  3. Yount v. Bank of Commerce

    44 P.2d 874 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 4 times

    Such imported consideration prevails in the absence of pleadings putting in issue the want of consideration, especially where note recites consideration as in case under consideration. White v. Kemper Military School, 132 Okla. 189, 270 P. 31; Bernert v. Bernert, 123 Okla. 78, 254 P. 724; Schauer v. Morgan (Mont.) 215 P. 350.

  4. Mitchell v. Finance Reserve Co.

    1 P.2d 717 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 1 times

    " In the case of White v. Kemper Military School, 132 Okla. 189, 270 P. 31, it is said: "Every negotiable instrument is deemed prima facie to have been issued for a valuable consideration, and every person whose signature appears thereon to have become a party thereto for value. Absence or failure of consideration is a matter of defense as against any person not a holder in due course."