Brown v. Barber
Decision Date | 05 December 1891 |
Citation | 28 P. 184,47 Kan. 527 |
Parties | S. A. BROWN et al. v. E. A. BARBER et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Allen District Court.
ACTION by E. A. Barber and George C. Barber, partners as E. A Barber & Co., against S. A. Brown and F. E. Parish partners as S. A. Brown & Co., to foreclose chattel mortgages executed by one Robbins, and recover property embraced therein from defendants. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. The facts appear at large in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
J. D McCleverty, and G. A. Amos, for plaintiffs in error.
J. B. F. Cates, and E. A. Barber, for defendants in error.
OPINION
This is an action commenced by E. A. Barber & Co. in the district court of Allen county to foreclose certain chattel mortgages, executed by E. S. Robbins, and to recover of S. A. Brown & Co. certain personal property that they claim was embraced in the chattel mortgages made to them by Robbins. Robbins was engaged in buying, selling and shipping live stock, and resided on a large farm that he owned near the city of Humboldt. S. A. Brown & Co. and E. A. Barber & Co. are private banking firms, both doing business in Humboldt, the bank of Brown & Co. being under the management of one T. W. Phelps. During the year 1886, and until some time in April, 1887, Robbins was depositing money and checking against the same, and from time to time receiving accommodation loans, and was permitted to overdraw his account in the banking house of S. A. Brown & Co. To secure S. A. Brown & Co., Robbins gave to them several chattel mortgages on live stock for loans and advances made to him by the banking house, all of which are set forth in the record, but only two of these mortgages are found and adjudged to be invalid in this action. One of these is dated January 13, and the other April 15, 1887. On the 13th day of January, 1887, Robbins borrowed of S. A. Brown & Co. $ 3,000, and to secure the same gave a chattel mortgage on a large amount of live stock, consisting of horses, mules, and cattle. On or about the 15th day of April, 1887, Robbins ceased to do his banking business with the house of S. A. Brown & Co., and was at that time indebted to them, in addition to other amounts, in the sum of $ 3,500, which was unsecured, and to secure it Robbins on that day executed and delivered to S. A. Brown & Co. a chattel mortgage on certain live stock, a portion of which was embraced in the one of date January 13th. After the execution of the mortgage of date April 15, 1887, Robbins ceased to do business with S. A. Brown & Co., and commenced to do his banking with E. A. Barber & Co., to whom he was indebted in the sum of $ 2,600 on previous transactions. E. A. Barber & Co. advanced money at intervals from the 15th day of April, 1887, to July 23 of the same year, at which time he was owing them about $ 4,000, and to secure it he gave them a chattel mortgage on a large number of horses and cattle. From July 23, 1887, until about the 10th day of August of the same year, E. A. Barber & Co. advanced Robbins additional sums of money, amounting to about $ 4,000, for which they had no security. About that time they ascertained from S. A. Brown & Co. the amount of Robbins's indebtedness to them, and discovered the fact that S. A. Brown & Co. were holding chattel mortgages on a large part of Robbins's personal property. On the 9th day of August, E. A. Barber & Co. entered into a written agreement with Robbins, by which he agreed to give them as additional security for the first $ 4,000 a first chattel mortgage on all his personal property not covered by any of the mortgages made to S. A. Brown & Co., and a second chattel mortgage on all his personal property embraced in the mortgages to S. A. Brown & Co., and to assign to E. A. Barber & Co. two life insurance policies of the face value of $ 10,000 each, and to give them a second mortgage on all his real estate, amounting to 880 acres of land. The chattel mortgages were executed and delivered in pursuance of this agreement. On the 2d day of January, 1888, Robbins had a large number of cattle, horses, mules and hogs on hand, and had no feed for them. In this condition of affairs, he made a proposition to S. A. Brown & Co., whose mortgage covered some, if not a large portion of the same, to turn over to them the property covered by their mortgages; and, in pursuance of such agreement, they took possession of the live stock mentioned in the sixteenth special finding of the referee. The live stock on which E. A. Barber & Co. had a first mortgage was by Robbins placed in the custody of one Alderman, under a contract made by Robbins and Alderman for care and feed.
The case was by stipulation of parties and an order of the district court referred to W. L. Simons, Esq., to try the same and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law. In June, 1888, the referee made his report, and his findings of fact and conclusions of law are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hasbrouck v. LaFebre
... ... 352, 99 A. D. 547; Greenebaum v ... Wheeler, 90 Ill. 296.) Kansas; ( Standard Imp. Co. v ... Schultz, 45 Kan. 52, 25 P. 625; Brown v ... Barber, 47 Kan. 527, 28 P. 184; Humphrey v ... Mayfield, 63 Kan. 208, 65 P. 234.) Minnesota; ... ( Gallagher v. Rosenfield, 47 Minn ... ...
-
Knollin v. Jones
... ... it is the duty of the jury to follow the law as laid down by ... the court. (State v. Wright, 53 Me. 329; Brown ... v. McAllister, 39 Cal. 575; People v. Anderson, ... 44 Cal. 65; McCrury v. Everding, 44 Cal. 296.) The ... instructions of the court upon this ... 13 P. 726; Aiken v. Pascall, 19 Ore. 493, 24 P ... 1039; Southard v. Beemer, 72 N.Y. 433; Brackett ... v. Harvey, 92 N.Y. 214; Brown v. Barber, 47 ... Kan. 527, 28 P. 184.) The verdict is not uncertain; the ... number of sheep and the value were agreed upon. Besides, such ... objections ... ...
-
Bussert v. Quinlan
...trustee. Affirmed. 1 See also: Garrison v. Kurt, 8 Cir., 249 F. 672; Brooks v. Bank of Beaver City, 82 Kan. 597, 109 P. 409; Brown v. Barber, 47 Kan. 527, 28 P. 184; Muse, Spivey & Co. v. Lehman, 30 Kan. 514, 1 P. 804; Joyce v. Armourdale State Bank, 127 Kan. 539, 274 P. 200; Starr v. Cox, ......