Mansour v. Caulfield

• Decision Date: 09 January 1912
• Parties: W. D. MANSOUR, Respondent, v. WILLIAM CAULFIELD, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

142 S.W. 770

160 Mo.App. 324

W. D. MANSOUR, Respondent, v. WILLIAM CAULFIELD, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 9, 1912

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

R. J Holmden for appellant.

Meservey & German and C. M. Blackmar for respondent.

OPINION

BROADDUS, P. J.

Replevin. Statement. On October 7, 1907, a judgment was obtained in the justice court by the Iowa State Bank against H. Mansour, and upon execution issuing thereon certain property alleged to be that of the defendant was seized by the constable. This property at the time of the seizure was claimed by the plaintiff herein, the mother of the said H. Mansour. Afterwards the plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant, the said constable, to recover said property. Upon the hearing of the case judgment was rendered for the plaintiff from which the defendant appealed. There is not much conflict in the testimony. The Mansours were natives of Syria, but the son spoke and understood the English language fairly well, but plaintiff's knowledge of it was scant and her testimony at the trial was delivered through an interpreter. The property replevined consisted of one black mare, one red delivery wagon and one cash register. The plaintiff's son and daughter were in a grocery store at 2306 Vine street, Kansas City, Missouri. At first it appears that the store was conducted under the name of Mansour & Gannan and that the son was acting in the business under his own name in buying goods, and that as such he afterwards sold out to Gannan and after that bought out the interest of Gannan.

The plaintiff testified that she furnished the money to buy the property and that her son had no interest in it whatever--that he was only the manager for her. The son testified that he bought an interest in the property several years before the trial, but that he was not the owner, but that he "just managed the business for his mother." There is nothing in the evidence that tends to contradict the statements of the mother and son that the mother furnished the money to buy the property and that the son had no interest in it whatever, but that he conducted the business in the way as shown by the testimony because of his ignorance of business methods. There is nothing to show that his conduct or that of plaintiff was for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding creditors. A bill of sale of the property to ...