Kerman v. Leeper

Citation157 S.W. 984
PartiesKERMAN v. LEEPER et al.
Decision Date02 June 1913
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Arch B. Davis, Judge.

Action by Carrie E. Kerman against Andrew Leeper and another. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Reversed.

Frank Sheetz & Son, of Chillicothe, for appellants. Karl Hirsh, of Kansas City, and Scott J. Miller, of Chillicothe, for respondent.

JOHNSON, J.

This is an action in replevin to recover certain hotel furniture. No affidavit and bond being filed by plaintiff, the property was left in possession of defendants, and was sold by them during the pendency of the suit. The facts which control the disposition of the case are as follows: The property, of the value of $800, was in the possession of defendants at the time of the beginning of this suit. It had belonged to the lessee of a hotel building owned by defendants, and by the terms of the lease had been subject to a lien for unpaid rent. The lessee became a bankrupt, and was indebted to defendants on account of rent in the sum of $410. The lessee also was indebted to plaintiff on a promissory note for $1,000, the payment of which was secured by a chattel mortgage on the property, but the lien of this mortgage was inferior to defendants' lien for rent. The property was ordered sold by the bankruptcy court, subject to these two liens, and defendants became the purchasers at that sale, and thereafter had possession of the property, and, as stated, were in possession thereof at the time this suit was instituted. A jury was waived, and the court rendered judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $390, the difference between the value of the property and the amount due defendants for unpaid rent.

In buying the property at the trustee's sale in bankruptcy, subject to the lien of plaintiff's mortgage, defendants did not assume the payment of the mortgage debt, but became the owners of the property subject to that incumbrance. The existence of that intervening incumbrance prevented the destruction of defendants' prior lien by merger and we may, and indeed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sanders v. Brooks
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 1946
    ...possession, and unless plaintiff is so entitled, he has no cause of action. Hinshaw v. Thornhill, 27 S.W. (2d) 776; Kerman v. Leeper, 172 Mo. App. 286, 157 S.W. 984; Windisch v. Farrow et al., 159 S.W. (2d) 392, l.c. 394; Sutton v. Railroad, 159 Mo. App. 685, l.c. 688, 140 S.W. 76; Shantz v......
  • Cindrick v. Scott, 21559.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 3, 1931
    ...of it at the commencement of the suit. [Shantz v. Shriner, 167 Mo. App. l.c. 643, 150 S.W. 727, and cases cited; Kerman v. Leeper, 172 Mo. App. l.c. 289, 157 S.W. 984; Cook v. Wheeler (Mo. App.), 218 S.W. l.c. 932 and cases As the statement shows the plaintiff, after the seizure of the radi......
  • Dolfuss v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1924
    ...See, also, Boutell v. Warne, 62 Mo. 350, loc. cit. 353 ; Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528 ; Dixon v. Atkinson, 86 Mo. App. 24; Kerman v. Leeper, 172 Mo. App. 286, loc. cit. 289-291, 157 S. W. 984; Meston v. Crawford (Mo. App.) 190 S. W. 391; McWherter v. Randall, 207 Mo. App. 465, 232 S. W. ......
  • Kerman v. McWilliams
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • June 2, 1913
    ...157 S.W. 984 172 Mo.App. 286 CARRIE E. KERMAN, Respondent, v. ANDREW LEEPER and HOMER McWILLIAMS, Appellants Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityJune 2, 1913 ...           Appeal ... from Livingston Circuit Court.--Hon. Arch. B. Davis, Judge ...           ... Judgment reversed ...          Frank ... Sheetz & Son for appellants ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT