A. J. Poor Grain Company v. Franke Grain Company
| Decision Date | 02 June 1913 |
| Parties | A. J. POOR GRAIN COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. FRANKE GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ENGLEWOOD, Interpleader, Defendant in Error |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.--Hon. Jacob L. Lorie, Special Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Arthur E. Lybolt for plaintiff in error.
Ball & Ryland for interpleader and defendant in error.
--Plaintiff in an action against defendant on an account, had the sheriff attach a carload of corn in the possession of the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company as a carrier of freight. The sheriff afterwards sold the corn for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, and the interpleader filed his interplea claiming the money. The judgment in the trial court was for the interpleader, and plaintiff appealed.
It appears that defendant was a grain company doing business in and near Englewood, Kansas, by purchasing from farmers and shipping and selling in Kansas City, Missouri. It arranged with the interpleader, a bank at Englewood, to cash checks which it would give for purchases and then when a shipment of grain was made it would draw a draft on the consignee, attach it to the bill of lading issued by the railway carriers and indorse it to the interpleader, who, in turn, would indorse it to its correspondent bank in Kansas City, to be paid by the consignee. But regardless of the general mode of transacting its business, the defendant in the present instance checked against the grain, interpleader honored the checks and, as indorsee, received the draft and bill of lading, which it indorsed to the First National Bank of Kansas City, Missouri. Defendant had sold the grain to the "Kansas City Grain and Seed Company" for four hundred and fifteen dollars, and the bill of lading with draft attached for that sum was to be taken up by that company, but payment was refused. Now it seems that the Kansas City Grain & Seed Company is really an individual named A. J. Poor, and that he, too, is this plaintiff calling himself "A. J. Poor Grain Company," and that in some former dealings as A. J. Poor Grain Company he claims defendant owed him the account upon which he brought this attachment. We have no concern with any controversy between him and defendant; the question we have to consider is whether the interpleader bank at Englewood became the owner of the grain when the bill of lading was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Street v. Werthan Bag & Burlap Co.
... ... Co-partners, Doing Business as STREET AND COMPANY, Respondents, v. WERTHAN BAG AND BURLAP ... 135, 143; ... R. S. 1909, sec. 11957; Grain Co. v. Grain Co., 171 ... Mo.App. 354; ... ...
-
Tapee v. Varley-Wolter Company
... ... Hendley v. Globe Ref. Co., ... 106 Mo.App. 20; Grain Co. v. Grain Co., 171 Mo.App ... 354; Boyd v. Merc. Co., 174 Mo.App ... ...
-
Price Brokerage Company v. Rushfeldt
... ... Co., 106 Mo.App. 20; Bank ... v. Milling Co., 163 Mo.App. 135; Grain Co. v. Grain ... Co., 171 Mo.App. 354; Boyd v. Mercer Co., 174 ... ...
-
Burgess v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
... ... 135; ... Milling Co. v. Stanley, 132 Mo.App. 308; Grain ... Co. v. Grain Co., 157 S.W. 840 (K. C. Ct. of App.); ... Strauss v ... Pritz & Co. v. Hirsch & Co., 63 Mo.App. 95; A. J ... Poor Grain Co. v. Franke Grain Co., 171 Mo.App. 354, 157 ... S.W. 840; Howard ... ...