Homer v. A. H. McCormick and The Snow Steam Pump Works

• Decision Date: 01 April 1899
• Docket Number: 459. [*]
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals
• Parties: W. B. HOMER, as Assignee of Ripley & Bronson, v. A. H. MCCORMICK AND THE SNOW STEAM PUMP WORKS, OF BUFFALO, N. Y

56 P. 1124

8 Kan.App. 333

W. B. HOMER, as Assignee of Ripley & Bronson, v. A. H. MCCORMICK AND THE SNOW STEAM PUMP WORKS, OF BUFFALO, N. Y

No. 459. ^[*]

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Northern Department

April 1, 1899

Opinion Filed April 26, 1899.

Error from Brown district court; R. M. EMERY, judge. Reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Means & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Jas. A Clark, for defendants in error.

OPINION

WELLS J.:

This action was begun by W. B. Homer, assignee of Ripley &amp Bronson, against A. H. McCormick and the Horton Water Company, to recover $ 1217.45 claimed to be due plaintiff from defendants for supplies used in the erection of a system of water-works in the city of Horton. In answer, the defendants pleaded payment for all the merchandise purchased by them of plaintiff, but alleged, in substance, that a certain engine and fixtures were purchased by them of plaintiff's assignors, as agents for the Snow Steam Pump Works, for $ 1191.50, on which they had paid $ 200, leaving a balance due of $ 991.50, which they were ready and willing to pay, but were prevented from doing so because the plaintiff and the Snow Steam Pump Works both claimed the same and demanded payment thereof. In reply, the plaintiff claimed that said goods were shipped by the pump works to Ripley & Bronson, the assignors of plaintiff, and charged to them, and that they had presented a claim therefor to the plaintiff as assignee, and had obtained judgment therefor under the assignment laws of Missouri.

Afterward by leave of court, the Snow Steam Pump Works, of Buffalo, N. Y., filed its interplea, asking judgment against A. H. McCormick for the sum due for said goods and remaining unpaid, alleged to be $ 1041.50 and interest, and such other relief as the court in equity might deem proper. To this interplea a general denial was filed by the plaintiff. The issues thus formed were tried to a jury, who found a general verdict for the interpleader, and in answer to special questions found that the account of the interpleader was charged by it to Ripley & Bronson; that the names of the defendants did not appear on its books, and that a claim therefor was presented to the plaintiff as assignee and allowed against the estate of Ripley & Bronson. The plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial and for a judgment in his favor on the special answers, both of which were overruled. Judgment was rendered in favor of the...