Long v. West

• Decision Date: 03 January 1884
• Citation: 1 P. 545,31 Kan. 298
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Parties: ADAM LONG AND JOHN LONG, Partners as Long Brothers, v. WEST & CO

1 P. 545

31 Kan. 298

ADAM LONG AND JOHN LONG, Partners as Long Brothers, v. WEST & CO

Supreme Court of Kansas

January 3, 1884

Error from Montgomery District Court.

ACTION by Adam Long and John Long, partners as Long Brothers against S. N. West and three others, partners as West &amp Co., to recover on an account for goods sold and delivered to defendants. The plaintiffs obtained an order of attachment which was levied upon a stock of goods belonging to defendants. April 2, 1883, on a hearing had before the judge of the district court at chambers, the attachment was discharged. This ruling the plaintiffs bring here. The opinion states the facts.

Order affirmed.

J. B Ziegler, for plaintiffs in error.

Dunkin & Chandler, for defendants in error.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

On February 5, 1883, the plaintiffs in error brought an action in the district court of Montgomery county against the defendants in error, to recover the sum of $ 142.73, which was alleged to be due on an account for goods, wares and merchandise alleged to have been furnished by the plaintiffs to the defendants. At the same time an order of attachment was issued, and was levied upon a stock of goods belonging to the defendants. On March 5, 1883, the defendants filed a motion to discharge the attachment as to the whole of the property attached, and on April 2, 1883, this motion was heard and sustained by the court, and the attachment discharged. The plaintiffs bring the case to this court for review, and in this court they claim that the attachment should be sustained, upon the following grounds: (1) That the evidence introduced on the hearing shows that the debt, or account, upon which the action was brought was fraudulently contracted by the defendants; (2) that the evidence introduced on the hearing shows that the defendants disposed of a portion of their property with the intention of hindering, delaying and defrauding their creditors; (3) that the evidence introduced on the hearing shows that the defendants were about to assign or dispose of their property, with the intention of hindering, delaying and defrauding their creditors.

It will be seen that the questions involved in this case are principally, if not entirely, questions of fact, founded entirely upon the evidence introduced on the hearing of the motion to discharge the attachment. Now this evidence is contradictory and unsatisfactory, and it is very difficult to determine from such evidence what the real facts of the case are. It is undoubtedly true, that some evidence was introduced tending to show fraud on the...