7 P. 603 (Kan. 1885), Woodmansie v. Holcomb
|Citation:||7 P. 603, 34 Kan. 35|
|Opinion Judge:||JOHNSTON, J.:|
|Party Name:||GEORGE F. WOODMANSIE v. Z. HOLCOMB|
|Attorney:||James Falloon, for plaintiff in error. C. W. Johnson, for defendant in error.|
|Judge Panel:||JOHNSTON, J. All the Justices concurring.|
|Case Date:||July 09, 1885|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Kansas|
Error from Brown District Court.
ACTION brought by Holcomb against Woodmansie, to recover damages for the alleged conversion by the defendant of a stock of groceries owned by the plaintiff. Trial at the January Term, 1884, and verdict for plaintiff for $ 591.06. Motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment accordingly for plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
[34 Kan. 36]
This is an action brought by Zephaniah Holcomb, alleging that on or about August 11, 1882, George T. Woodmansie unlawfully seized, carried away and converted to his own use a stock of groceries owned by the plaintiff, and to his damage in the sum of $ 5,200. The defendant, in justification, claimed that the property was seized by him as constable under certain writs of attachment duly issued against Holcomb & Lilly, a partnership composed of T. W. Holcomb, a son of the plaintiff, and one H. C. Lilly, and that the goods were subsequently sold upon judgments rendered against said firm in the attachment suits, and the proceeds of the sale applied in satisfaction of such judgments. The plaintiff claimed that he had purchased and was the owner of the stock of goods before they were levied upon by the defendant, while the defendant claimed that the consideration of the alleged purchase by the plaintiff consisted mainly of the individual debts of T. W. Holcomb to the plaintiff, and that the transfer was made with the intent to hinder and delay the creditors of Holcomb & Lilly in the collection of their debts. The cause was tried with a jury, and the verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here for review.
The principal question presented and urged by plaintiff in error arises upon the refusal of the court to charge the jury as follows:
"The court instructs the jury that the creditors of partners have a prior right to look to the partnership property, for the payment of their debts, to the creditors of the individuals composing the partnership. And if any creditor...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP