Collingsworth v. Bell
| Decision Date | 11 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | 8037 |
| Citation | 56 Kan. 338,43 P. 252 |
| Parties | T. W. COLLINGSWORTH v. J. M. BELL, as Sheriff of Franklin County |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1896.
Error from Franklin District Court.
THE plaintiff in error brought this action to recover the value of a stock of merchandise, which he alleges belonged to him and was taken by the defendant from his possession. The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the petition and alleging that he was the sheriff of Franklin county, and that as such he took possession of the goods mentioned in the plaintiff's petition under four several orders of attachment duly issued against the property of Rankin Bros that the goods so taken were the property of said Rankin Bros.; that the claim of title thereto by the plaintiff was fraudulent, and made for the purpose of assisting Rankin Bros. to defraud their creditors; that Rankin Bros. were insolvent; that whatever claim the plaintiff had to the goods he obtained from one J. W. Rankin, a member of the firm of Rankin Bros., who was in collusion with the plaintiff and his copartners in their attempts to cheat and defraud their creditors; that J. W. Rankin was jointly liable with the other members of the firm of Rankin Bros. to the plaintiffs in the attachment suits for the full amount of their claims that, notwithstanding his liability, said J. W. Rankin took from the firm of Rankin Bros. a pretended chattel mortgage upon the stock of goods for $ 3,000; that on or about the 5th day of July, 1889, he pretended to convey to the plaintiff his claim to the goods, and that the plaintiff took no other or greater rights to the goods than J. W. Rankin had; that the pretended chattel mortgage was wholly void, and that the plaintiff took nothing by the pretended conveyance of the goods to him. To this answer an unverified reply containing a general denial was filed. On the trial the plaintiff obtained leave, after the introduction of certain records, to amend his reply. In this amendment it is alleged that the merchandise described in the petition was a part of the identical stock of goods described in the petition filed by J. W. Rankin in a certain cause commenced by him in that court against the defendant herein; that the cause of action set forth in that petition was the same as the cause of action set out in this, and that the same defense was alleged in the answer in that case as in this, and the issues therein in all respects the same; that the plaintiff herein claims title to the goods under a conveyance thereof by J. W. Rankin to him under the mortgage; that said action was duly tried on the 31st day of October, 1889, before said court, and a judgment rendered therein in his favor. On the trial the plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that he was in possession of the goods under a sale to him by S.W. Rankin acting as the agent of the mortgagee, J. W. Rankin. A note for $ 3,000, dated June 24, 1889, due January 1, 1890, executed by Rankin Bros. to J. W. Rankin, and a chattel mortgage on the goods in question of the same date, were also read in evidence. There was also evidence tending to show that the firm of Rankin Bros. consisted of J. E. and J. H. Rankin, who were sons of the mortgagee. The plaintiff claims title to the goods under a bill of sale, which reads as follows:
By Wallace Rankin, for Mortgagee.
"Witness: T. J. Gregory."
The principal part of the testimony introduced by the defendant was for the purpose of showing that the sale to Collingsworth was a sham, and that the whole transaction between him and S.W. Rankin was for the purpose of aiding Rankin Bros. in defrauding their creditors. The court instructed the jury that if they found from the evidence that the sale was made for the purpose of hindering or defrauding the creditors of Rankin Bros., and Collingsworth knew it, then the sale was wholly void as against the creditors, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. Swisher
...something saved for the general creditors. We think there was evidence sufficient to sustain said finding. In the case of Collingsworth v. Bell, 56 Kan. 338, 43 P. 252, 43 P. 252, Mr. Justice Allen, speaking for court, said: The position taken by counsel for plaintiff in error is, that the ......