Christie v. Carter
| Decision Date | 07 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | 7757 |
| Parties | JOHN S. CHRISTIE v. M. A. CARTER, as Administratrix of the Estate of S. F. Carter, deceased |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1895.
Error from Marion District Court.
ACTION by M. A. Carter, as administratrix of the estate of S. F Carter, against John S. Christie. Judgment for plaintiff defendant brings the case here. All the material facts appear in the opinion, filed December 7, 1895.
Motion to dismiss sustained.
Keller & Dean, for plaintiff in error.
Jetmore & Jetmore, for defendant in error.
OPINION
Action was brought in the court below by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error December 26, 1889, the petition stating, among other things, that a partnership was formed between S. F. Carter and John S. Christie June 18 1886, for carrying on a banking and exchange business, which was conducted until July 8, 1887, when S. F. Carter died intestate; that the plaintiff was his widow, and the administratrix of his estate; that Christie continued to carry on the business without any accounting until September 19, 1889, when she made application to the probate court, and caused a citation to issue against him to execute a bond as surviving partner; that on September 20, 1889, he executed such bond, and thereafter claimed to exhibit assets to the appraisers appointed by the court, which exhibition was made November 26, 1889; but she claims that the assets were not fully exhibited, and in consequence thereof the net amount was only $ 7,988.11, whereas, on a true showing, about $ 15,000 would be due the estate of her deceased husband; and that no accounting had yet been made by Christie. She prayed for an accounting, and for judgment for $ 15,000; that a receiver be appointed, etc. A hearing was had on the application for the appointment of a receiver, the defendant objecting to any testimony for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction. On the hearing the court refused to appoint a receiver, but held that an accounting should be had, and referred the case to F. H. Kollock as referee to hear and report the facts, and to examine the mutual accounts, to which reference both parties consented in open court. An answer was afterward filed, being a general denial. The referee heard the evidence and made his report, and the defendant below moved to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction, but judgment was rendered for the plaintiff below on the report, with a slight modification, on January 5, 1891, for the sum of $ 11,723 damages, and costs, besides awarding her one-half of the proceeds of certain accounts amounting to $ 695 when collected. Time was thereupon given the defendant below to serve a case-made in 60 days, and the plaintiff below was allowed 20 days to suggest amendments, and the case to be settled on five days' notice by either party. The time was extended March 4, 1891, for 30 days, and again April 3, 1891, for 30 days, and the case-made was served April 24, 1891. The case was settled at Marion August 5, 1891. The question argued upon its merits in this court was as to the jurisdiction of the district court, in view...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tulsa Ice Co. v. Wilkes
...were allowed; third, that defendant suggested amendments all of which were allowed, except those that were immaterial. Christie v. Carter, 56 Kan. 166, 42 P. 708." ¶7 We think this case comes within the exceptions noted above, and that the second point of the motion to dismiss is likewise n......
-
Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee
...... al., 18 Kan. 592; Safford et al. v. Turner, 53. Kan. 728, 37 P. 121; Chicago & Atchison Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kan. 17, 39 P. 727; Christie v. Carter, 56 Kan. 166, 42 P. 708. . . In the. case at bar it appears that counsel for plaintiff in error. served the ......
-
Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee
...Kan. 592; Safford et al. v. Turner, 53 Kan. 728, 37 P. 121; Chicago & Atchison Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kan. 17, 39 P. 727; Christie v. Carter, 56 Kan. 166, 42 P. 708. ¶4 In the case at bar it appears that counsel for plaintiff in error served the case-made on counsel for defendant in error......
-
Nebraska Loan & Trust Co. v. Jones
...they were, or that they were allowed or rejected. Upon the authority of Insurance Co. v. Amick, 36 Kan. 99, 12 P. 338, and Christie v. Carter, 56 Kan. 166, 42 P. 708, objection must be sustained. This case comes more nearly, as to the facts, within the purview of Davis v. Railway Co., decid......