A.M. Lanphear & Co. v. Ketcham
| Decision Date | 06 July 1894 |
| Citation | 37 P. 119,53 Kan. 799 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | A. M. LANPHEAR & CO. v. HARRIET KETCHAM |
Error from Atchison District Court.
ON the 17th day of May, 1890, Lanphear & Co. commenced their action against William Ketcham, to recover $ 1,800, on a note of that amount, dated August 14, 1889, payable six months after date. The firm of A. M. Lanphear & Co. consisted of A. M. Lanphear and H. N. Jewett. On the 17th day of May 1890, plaintiffs, after having filed an affidavit and bond for attachment, caused a writ to issue, and the same was levied on the east half of lot No. 4, in block 39, in the city of Atchison, upon which there is a store building. The property was appraised by the sheriff at $ 7,000. Later, and on May 31, 1890, Harriet Ketcham, the wife of the defendant filed a motion to discharge the property from the attachment on the ground that the same was owned by her, and that William Ketcham had no interest therein. The property attached was, on the 26th day of February, 1890, deeded by William and Harriet Ketcham, his wife, to David Martin, and on the same day David Martin executed a quitclaim deed to Harriet Ketcham. Afterward, on July 10, 1889, Herbert N Jewett, a partner of Lanphear & Co., commenced an action in the district court of Atchison county against William Ketcham and Harriet Ketcham, to recover a judgment against William Ketcham for $ 1,677.03, and interest thereon from May 11, 1887, and to enjoin both defendants from disposing of incumbering or selling the real estate in controversy, and for general relief. It was claimed in the petition that William Ketcham and A. M. Lanphear had been partners in business, and that in May, 1887, H. N. Jewett had purchased the interest of William Ketcham in the firm, and had overpaid him that much on the purchase price; and the action was brought to recover the amount of the alleged overpayment. It was further averred that, at the time of the purchase William Ketcham was the owner of the east half of lot 4, block 39, and that on or about February 26, 1889, he had conveyed the same to Harriet Ketcham, his wife, without consideration, for the purpose of cheating, swindling and defrauding his creditors, and especially H. N. Jewett, as Harriet Ketcham well knew at the time, and that William Ketcham was insolvent. A part of the petition was in the nature of a creditor's bill, but it concluded with a prayer for an injunction. A temporary injunction was granted against the sale or conveyance of the property by Harriet and William Ketcham; and an order of attachment was also sued out and levied on the same property, the ground therefor alleged in the affidavit being that "The defendant William Ketcham has assigned and disposed of his property with intent to defraud, hinder and delay his creditors." On August 22, 1889, a stipulation was entered into acknowledging the settlement of the case, and providing for its dismissal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fuller v. Wright
... ... v. Funk, 35 Kan. 668, 12 P. 15; Brooks v. Hall, ... 36 Kan. 697, 14 P. 236; Lanphear v. Ketcham, 53 Kan ... 799, 37 P. 119; Lewis v. Telephone Co., 95 Kan. 136, ... 139, 147 P ... ...
-
Coleman v. Costello
... ... furnished satisfaction to the creditor. (Lanphear v ... Ketcham, 53 Kan. 799, 37 P. 119; Bank v ... Chatten, 69 Kan. 435, 77 P. 96.) On the other ... ...
-
Harpham Brothers Company v. Perry
... ... recourse which might have furnished satisfaction to the ... creditor. (Lanphear v. Ketcham, 53 Kan. 799, 37 P ... 119; Bank v. Chatten, 69 Kan. 435, 77 P. 96.) On the ... other ... ...
-
The State Bank of Chase v. Chatten
...sought to have declared a charge upon the real estate. Held, that he should have been considered a "subsequent creditor." (Lanphear v. Ketcham, 53 Kan. 799, 37 P. 119.) & Adams, Samuel Jones, and C. F. Foley, for plaintiff in error. C. W. Burch, and O. E. Hopkins, for defendant in error. MA......