Joseph Cahn & Company v. Tootle
| Decision Date | 08 May 1897 |
| Docket Number | 9887 |
| Citation | 48 P. 919,58 Kan. 260 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH CAHN & COMPANY v. TOOTLE, WHEELER & MOTTER |
Decided January, 1897.
Error from Clark District Court. Hon. Francis C. Price, Judge.
Judgment reversed.
E. F Ware, for plaintiff in error; Gleed, Ware & Gleed, D. E Palmer and C. Hamilton, of counsel.
Reed James & Street, for defendants in error.
This was a controversy between Joseph Cahn & Co. and Tootle, Hosea & Co., creditors of E. S. Miner & Co., over a fund derived from the sale of attached property. Since the controversy arose, there has been a change in the firm of Tootle, Hosea & Co., which is now known as Tootle, Wheeler & Motter; and for convenience the creditors will hereafter be designated by the first name used in each firm.
This is the second appearance of the case in this court, and the claims of the parties, as well as the earlier proceedings in the case, may be learned from the report of the first consideration. Tootle v. Cahn, 52 Kan. 73. After the reversal here, the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, when Tootle presented to the court below a motion asking for judgment against Cahn for $ 2,711.41, with interest from June 17, 1889; alleging that, since the first judgment was rendered and before the reversal of the same, Cahn had received that amount of the contested fund from the clerk of the court. At the same time, Cahn moved for leave to dismiss the motion filed when his firm intervened in the Tootle attachment action; but the motion was denied. The District Court then, without testimony and without further trial of the cause, awarded judgment against Cahn for $ 3,517.15. In the judgment then rendered, it is recited that the records of the court show that, on June 28, 1889, Cahn received from the clerk the contested fund in his hands, and for that reason the application to dismiss was refused. It is also recited that judgment in favor of Tootle is entered in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court and its mandate to the District Court. The mandate provided "that the judgment of the District Court be reversed and that this cause be remanded for such other proceedings as are in accord with the views of this court as expressed in its written opinion, a certified copy of which is herewith transmitted."
The judgment of this court did not necessarily end the controversy between the parties. The mandate was general directing further proceedings in the case, to be governed by the legal principles announced in the opinion of the court. If it had been the view of this court that judgment should be entered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholas v. Latham
...special questions. Our reports are replete with authorities to this effect, a few of which are: McCrum v. Corby, 15 Kan. 112; Cahn v. Tootle, 58 Kan. 260, 48 P. 919; Johnston v. Lanter, 92 Kan. 257, 139 P. 1031; People's Nat'l Bank of Kansas City v. Casey, 127 Kan. 581, 274 P. 286; Foust v.......
-
Penrose v. Cooper
...... Hartford Western Land Company, dated November 28, 1896,. recorded December 7, 1896, a quitclaim deed ... have no application. (Cahn v. Tootle, 58 Kan. 260,. 48 P. 919.) This court did not determine Penrose ......
-
Gould v. Robinson
...trial on the issues framed by the pleadings as though there had not been a trial. 46 C.J. 436; McCrum v. Corby, 15 Kan. 112; Cahn v. Tootle, 58 Kan. 260, 48 P. 919; Johnston v. Lanter, 92 Kan. 257, 139 P. 1031; Peoples Nat. Bank v. Casey, 127 Kan. 581, 274 P. 286; Foust v. Mills, 128 Kan. 4......
-
Smith v. Canyon County Consolidated School District No. 34
...... C. L. 290, sec. 244; 96 Am. St. 128, note; Cahn v. Tootle, 58 Kan. 260, 48 P. 919; 4 C. J. 1239, sec. 3299,. and ......