Frankhouser v. Cannon
| Decision Date | 11 February 1893 |
| Citation | 32 P. 379,50 Kan. 621 |
| Parties | N. FRANKHOUSER, as Sheriff of Osage County, et al., v. W. B. CANNON |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Osage District Court.
THE opinion states the facts. Judgment for plaintiff, Cannon February 18, 1889. The defendant Frankhouser, as sheriff, and another, bring the case to this court.
Judgment affirmed.
Pleasant & Pleasant, for plaintiffs in error.
J. H Stavely, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought by W. B. Cannon against N. Frankhouser and J. G. Ellis, to recover the possession of two mares alleged to have been taken on execution as the property of his son, John P. Cannon. The mares were valued at $ 150, and $ 50 damages were claimed for the detention thereof. Trial before the court with a jury. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff below for the possession of the property, and $ 75 were allowed as damages for the detention of the same. Subsequently judgment was rendered thereon, and the defendants below bring the action here for review.
Various errors are alleged concerning the admission, the rejection of evidence and the giving of instructions. We have examined all of the questions presented and discussed in the briefs, but most of the alleged errors are trivial and wholly unimportant. W. B. Cannon claimed the property under a purchase on the 19th of December, 1888. A written bill of sale of 12 horses and colts, from John P. Cannon to W. B Cannon, was introduced in evidence, of that date. The amount paid for all this property by W. B. Cannon to John P., as testified to by them, was $ 800. Seventy-five dollars were paid in cash on the 19th of December, 1888. One hundred and eighty-eight dollars were acknowledged received on account of the payment of a security debt. Two hundred and seventy dollars were paid in labor, and $ 100 for the keeping of two children one year. On the 31st of December, 1888, $ 167, the balance due on the bill of sale, were settled with property. It is contended that judgment should have been rendered in favor of Frankhouser, upon the ground that there is no evidence connecting him with the wrongful possession of the goods, or with the transaction in any way. The petition alleged that the property in controversy was seized on the 5th day of February, 1889, by N. Frankhouser, sheriff of Osage county, by virtue of an execution issued out of the district court of that county. Upon the trial, it was admitted by the parties that the property was levied upon by John G. Ellis, acting as deputy sheriff of Osage county. In view of the provisions of § 108 of the civil code, taking all allegations of authority as true unless denied upon oath, and the unverified answer filed in this case, and the admission of the parties, we think it may be fairly said that N. Frankhouser was the sheriff, and that J. G. Ellis made the levy as his deputy sheriff. The sheriff is the real party in interest, as the acts of the deputy sheriff levying an execution bind him. (McCracken v. Todd, 1 Kan. 148; Hoisington v. Brakey, 31 id. 560.) In this case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yount v. Hoover
... ... substituted as the defendant." (Hoisington, ... Sheriff, v. Brakey, 31 Kan. 560, 3 P. 353, syl. P 1, 3 ... P. 353. See, also, Frankhouser v. Cannon, 50 Kan ... 621, 622, 32 P. 379, and McDowell v. Gibson, 58 Kan ... 607, 610, 50 P. 870.) ... "In a suit against a ... ...
-
Monroe v. Darr
...makes a levy upon property not authorized by the writ of execution, the sheriff is responsible with him for damages. (Frankhouser v. Cannon, 50 Kan. 621, 32 P. 379; Jones v. Simmons, Sheriff,155 Kan. 505, 223 P. 284.) In Pfannenstiel v. Doerfler, 152 Kan. 479, 105 P.2d 886, this court held ......
-
Saar v. The Atchison
... ... Gibbons, 95 Kan ... 802, 814, 149 P. 422.) ... Other ... cases are W. & C. Rly. Co. v. Gibbs, 47 Kan ... 274, 27 P. 991; Frankhouser v. Cannon, 50 Kan. 621, ... 32 P. 379; Dennis v. Benfer, 54 Kan. 527, 38 P. 806; ... Railway Co. v. Meyer, 58 Kan. 305, 49 P. 89; ... Railway Co ... ...
-
Osenbaugh v. Virgin & Morse Lumber Co., Case Number: 23622
...see: Comley Lbr. Co. v. Mid Co Pet. Co., 116 Kan. 78, 225 P. 744; Starr v. Cook, 127 Kan. 122, 272 P. 138; Frankhouser v. Cannon, 50 Kan. 621, 32 P. 379; Nat'l Guaranty Fire Ins. Co. v. King (Tex. Civ. App.) 24 S.W.2d 501; and Bancroft Code Pleading, vol. 1, page 680, section 471. ¶11 While......