27 Kan. 375 (Kan. 1882), Long v. Murphy

Citation:27 Kan. 375
Opinion Judge:HORTON, C. J.
Party Name:ADAM LONG AND JOHN LONG, Partners, &c., v. CLINTON D. MURPHY, et al
Attorney:J. B. Ziegler, for plaintiffs in error. L. U. Humphrey, and W. T. O'Connor, for defendants in error.
Judge Panel:HORTON, C. J. All the Justices concurring.
Court:Supreme Court of Kansas

Page 375

27 Kan. 375 (Kan. 1882)

ADAM LONG AND JOHN LONG, Partners, &c.,

v.

CLINTON D. MURPHY, et al

Supreme Court of Kansas

January, 1882

Error from Chautauqua District Court.

ACTION brought by Adam Long and John Long, partners as Long Brothers, against Murphy, to recover upon a certain promissory note. The nature of the action, and the facts, appear in the opinion. Of certain orders made by the district judge November 26, 1881, the plaintiffs complain, and have brought the case here.

Order reversed.

J. B. Ziegler, for plaintiffs in error.

L. U. Humphrey, and W. T. O'Connor, for defendants in error.

HORTON, C. J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

Page 376

HORTON, C. J.:

On the 2d day of July, 1881, plaintiffs in error commenced an action against C. D. Murphy, one of the defendants in error, to recover upon a promissory note executed March 29, 1881, for $ 385.83, due sixty days after date, with interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum. At the commencement of the action, plaintiffs obtained an order of attachment against the property of the said defendant Murphy, and on July 5, 1881, no goods or chattels of the said defendant being found, the order was levied upon the east half of the northeast quarter of section 14, township 34, south, range 8, in Chautauqua county; and on July 9, 1881, an additional levy of said order was made on the west half of the southwest quarter of section 14, and the east half of the southeast quarter of section 15, township 34, range 8, also in Chautauqua county. All of the land was taken as the property of the defendant, C. D. Murphy, and the property levied upon on the 5th day of July was appraised at $ 2,000; and the property levied upon on the 9th of July was appraised at $ 500. The grounds alleged in the affidavit for attachment were, that C. D. Murphy had property and rights in action which he concealed; and that he had assigned and disposed of his property with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors. Subsequent to the attachment, the defendant in error Emma L. Murphy claimed title to the tract of land levied upon on July 5th, and the defendant in error Abram Yates claimed title to the other land. Thereafter, the defendant C. D. Murphy made his motion, upon

Page 377

notice to the plaintiffs, to discharge the attachment. Emma L. Murphy and C. D. Murphy made a joint motion to discharge from the attachment the tract of land claimed by the said Emma L. Murphy, and in said motion alleged that C. D. Murphy was the husband of the said Emma L. Murphy, and that the land so claimed by her was a homestead and exempt from forced sale under any process of, law. The said defendant Abram Yates also made a motion to discharge from the attachment the land claimed by him. These several motions were heard before the judge...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP