Chandler v. Parker
| Decision Date | 11 October 1902 |
| Citation | 65 Kan. 860,70 P. 368 |
| Parties | CHANDLER v. PARKER. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
In banc. Error from district court, Washington county; F. W Sturges, Judge.
Action by Cynthia A. Parker against W. A. Chandler, constable, etc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Hamilton & Haromon and R. C. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
Edgar Bennett, for defendant in error.
The defendant was a constable of Clifton township, Washington county, Kan., and as such there was delivered to him an execution issued out of a justice of the peace court against J. T. Parker, which he levied on certain cattle, one horse and a buggy, as the property of the defendant in the execution. This action was brought to recover the possession of this property by Cynthia A. Parker, wife of J. T. Parker, who claimed to be the owner. At the trial the plaintiff asked, and was permitted, to so amend her petition as to increase the value of each of the articles above that alleged in her replevin affidavit. Under the liberal provisions of section 139 of the Civil Code, that was not error.
After the amendment, the defendant filed his motion and affidavit for a continuance of the cause, that he might procure testimony to meet the question of values as increased by the amended petition. This was overruled. The value of the property was no less a question before than after the amendment. The same evidence by which defendant intended to establish the actual value of the property under the original petition was available and competent to show its actual value under the amended petition. The value of the property was always a question at issue, and, if the defendant was prepared for trial upon this question before the petition was amended, he was equally well prepared after the amendment.
It is also contended that the court erred in admitting the plaintiff to testify as to the value of this property. There seems to be no foundation for this objection. This woman had lived on the farm 17 years. During that period of time she bought and sold hogs, horses, and cattle, and actually purchased all of the cattle in question. This was sufficient to qualify her to give an opinion as to the value of the property.
Complaint is also made that much of the evidence introduced was for the purpose of showing the value of the property at the time the cause was tried, and not at the time the property was...
To continue reading
Request your trial