Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1917 |
| Docket Number | 4779. |
| Citation | 243 F. 517 |
| Parties | LOHMAN v. STOCKYARDS LOAN CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles M. Cope, of Pawhuska, Okl., for plaintiff in error.
R. F Blair, of Wagoner, Okl. (B. F. Deatherage, of Kansas City Mo., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.
In its facts this case is in many ways similar to the case of Stockyards Loan Co. v. Nichols, 243 F. 511 C.C.A. . . ., and the cases were argued and submitted at the same time. The loan company began an action of replevin against Nichols and Lohman, to recover possession of some cattle. The case was subsequently dismissed as to Nichols, as the cattle were not in his possession when replevined. The plaintiff asserted a lien by reason of the same mortgage that it relied upon in the other case. The cattle in controversy here were purchased by Nichols a few weeks after the execution of the mortgage. He and Mr. Charboneau made a purchase of 108 head of cattle and each took half of them. Each then branded his cattle, Nichols placing the crossbar brand upon the left shoulder of those he selected. They kept them together in Charboneau's pasture in Cherokee county, Okl. A week or two afterwards, the defendant Lohman, accompanied by Mr. Miller, a friendly adviser, made an examination of the herd with a view of purchasing them. There was evidence tending to show that Miller, in the presence and hearing of Lohman, asked Charboneau why the cattle bore two different brands, and Charboneau answered that half of the cattle belonged to him and half to Nichols, and that Nichols had his half mortgaged to one firm and he had his half mortgaged to another, and therefore they had separate brands to distinguish them. The next day Lohman purchased the cattle and thereafter shipped them to his ranch in Osage county.
They were seized in this action in August, 1915. The court submitted the case to the jury, and the jury found for plaintiff under instructions of the court that, unless Lohman had notice of plaintiff's mortgage before he purchased the cattle, the verdict must be for the defendant.
The brief of plaintiff in error disregards the provisions of rule 24 of this court (188 F. xvi, 109 C.C.A. xvi), which requires the brief to set out the specifications of errors relied upon separately, and this would warrant an affirmance of the judgment. Moline Trust & Savings Bank v. Wylie, 149 F. 734, 79 C.C.A. 440.
In the specification of errors as filed in the lower...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hard & Rand v. Biston Coffee Co.
...been enforced, and its violation is alone ground for affirmance. Kinser v. United States (C. C. A.) 231 F. 856; Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co. (C. C. A.) 243 F. 517; City of Goldfield v. Roger (C. C. A.) 249 F. 39; Daly-West Mining Co. et al. v. Savage (C. C. A.) 253 F. Even if the last two ......
-
HF Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. Skidmore
...Walton Trust Co. v. Taylor (C. C. A. 8) 2 F. (2d) 342, 344; Tamblyn et al. v. Johnston (C. C. A. 8) 126 F. 267, 271; Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co. (C. C. A. 8) 243 F. 517; American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Karapa (C. C. A. 8) 173 F. The request for a peremptory instruction, stating no gro......
- Stockyards Loan Co. v. Nichols
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Brady
...v. Sun Vapor Street-Light Co. (C. C. A. 8) 59 F. 756, 758; Kinser v. United States (C. C. A. 8) 231 F. 856, 861; Lohman v. Stockyards Loan Co. (C. C. A. 8) 243 F. 517, 518; City of Goldfield v. Roger (C. C. A. 8) 249 F. 39, 40; Daly-West Mining Co. et al. v. Savage et al. (C. C. A. 8) 253 F......