42 P. 255 (Kan.App. 1895), Morse v. Patterson

Citation:42 P. 255, 1 Kan.App. 577
Opinion Judge:DENNISON, J.:
Party Name:J. C. O. MORSE et al. v. MARY P. PATTERSON
Attorney:W. W. Schwinn, for plaintiffs in error. A. A. Richards, for defendant in error.
Case Date:May 01, 1895
Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 255

42 P. 255 (Kan.App. 1895)

1 Kan.App. 577

J. C. O. MORSE et al.

v.

MARY P. PATTERSON

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Central Division

May 1, 1895

Opinion Filed October 23, 1895.

MEMORANDUM.--Error from Sumner district court; JAMES A. RAY, judge. Action in replevin by Mary P. Patterson against J. C. O. Morse and Henry Hahn. Judgment for plaintiff. The defendants bring the case to this court. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion, filed October 23, 1895.

Judgment affirmed.

W. W. Schwinn, for plaintiffs in error.

A. A. Richards, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Page 256

[1 Kan.App. 578] DENNISON, J.:

This is an action in replevin, brought in the district court of Sumner county, Kansas, by Mary P. Patterson against J. C. O. Morse and Henry Hahn, to recover the possession of four horses of which she claimed to be the owner and entitled to the immediate possession, and which were unlawfully detained from her possession by the defendants. J. C. O. Morse claimed to be in possession by virtue of a writ of attachment issued to him from the district court of Sumner county, as sheriff of said county, in the case of H. C. Suttle against Ambrose Patterson, who was the husband of Mary P. Patterson, and Henry Hahn was holding the stock for the sheriff. The case was tried by a jury, and it returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon. The defendants bring the case here for review.

The plaintiffs in error contend that the district court erred in permitting the case to go to the jury, in overruling the motion for a new trial, and in rendering judgment on the verdict. The evidence discloses the fact that this defendant in error owned one sorrel mare, named "Daize;" that her father gave her a horse after she was married, and it was by her father-in-law traded for another horse which he traded for the sorrel mare "Daize;" that three of the horses in controversy were colts of "Daize," and one the colt of a daughter of "Daize;" that the mare was kept on the farm where the Pattersons lived, and that she was worked, fed and cared for by them the same as the other horses on the farm; that Patterson attended to the breeding of the mares and to settling the service fees and to paying the taxes on the stock; that he [1 Kan.App. 579] sold two of the colts, and for at least one of them he took a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP