McKinney v. Grant

Decision Date07 December 1907
Docket Number15,210
PartiesW. S. MCKINNEY v. JAMES U. GRANT et al
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided July, 1907.

Error from Geary district court; OSCAR L. MOORE, judge.

STATEMENT.

W. S MCKINNEY brought this action against James U. Grant and A. A Flower by filing an ordinary petition in replevin to recover two pianos. The defendants joined issue by a general denial. The plaintiff claimed that he had the title and right of possession to the pianos, and that he had placed them in the possession of one W. J. Shillito for the purpose of sale only, in accordance with the terms of a written contract, a copy of which is as follows:

"December 9, 1902.

"The McKinney Music Company:

"GENTLEMEN--I will take your pianos and organs on consignment for Junction City, Kan., and vicinity, to be accounted for at agreed prices, and upon the following conditions:

"(1) The instruments and proceeds of sale are your property subject to your order and free from any claim whatsoever. I agree to take good care of all instruments consigned to me and to be responsible for the safe-keeping of the same; also to keep them insured for your benefit, with the policies made payable to you in case of loss, to an amount not less than the consignment price of same.

"(2) I agree to send the cash to you for each and every instrument separately, as soon as sold.

"(3) I agree to furnish all necessary funds for the payment of freight charges and other expenses connected with the handling of your goods, or expense incurred on account of your having consigned said goods to me, and will make no charge for repairing pianos or organs, or for such services as are for our mutual benefit, unless the charge be agreed upon and authorized in writing previous to the rendering of such service.

"(4) I agree to pay interest at eight per cent. per annum on all goods unsold and on hand after three months from date of shipment, but it is expressly understood that the charging of said interest and the payment thereof shall in no sense be construed as constituting a sale of said goods to me.

"(5) Upon your demand or that of your authorized representative I will deliver, as you may direct, free of charge or expense to you of any kind, including return freight to Cincinnati, all of said consigned goods remaining unsettled for at the time of said demand; I agree, in addition to returning the said stock, to pay you an amount for depreciation of value at the rate of eight per cent. per annum, from date of original shipment, on the consignment prices quoted on said stock.

"(6) On the first of each month I agree to send you a report of all instruments consigned and unsettled for, in stock and in the possession of prospective customers, giving the style and number of each instrument and its location, and will not expect orders for additional stock to be filled while such report is overdue. It is further understood that you reserve the right, without notice, to reject any request from me for consignments.

"(7) This agreement may be terminated at any time, by either party, by notice being given in writing of such termination.

"Accepted THE MCKINNEY MUSIC CO.

W. J. SHILLITO.

"In consideration of the above, and the modifications or changes of the same, if any, and one dollar, I, or we, or either of us, guarantee that the said will faithfully perform part of the agreement, duly account for all money, notes, contracts and property of whatsoever nature belonging to the McKinney Music Company which may come into hands, and further agree to hold, without litigation, the McKinney Music Company harmless from loss in their dealings with the said, , my liability or our liability not to exceed dollars. I or we, or either of us, hereby waive the benefit of all homestead and exemption laws. This guaranty to be valid and binding upon the party or parties executing the same without regard to their number.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • City of San Antonio v. Chas. M. Stieff, Inc.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 27, 1935
    ...Van Arsdale v. Peacock, 90 Kan. 347, 133 P. 703; Baldwin Piano Co. v. Lyon County State Bank, 126 Kan. 519, 268 P. 859; McKinney v. Grant, 76 Kan. 779, 93 P. 180; Brown v. John Church Co., 55 Ill. App. 615; Bridgeport Organ Co. v. Guldin, 3 Pa. Dist. R. 649; Starr Piano Co. v. Morrison, 159......
  • Globe Securities Co. v. Gardner Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 9, 1935
    ... ... Renfroe v. Hall, 202 S.W. 218; Chase-Hackley ... Piano Co. v. Clymer, 202 S.W. 214; Van Arsdale v ... Peacock, 90 Kan. 347; McKinney v. Grant, 76 ... Kan. 779; Renoe v. Western Star Milling Co., 53 Kan ... 255; Columbus Buggy Co., 143 F. 859 ...           ... ...
  • McConnon v. Holden
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1922
    ...Mach. Co. v. Ewing, 141 U.S. 627, 12 S.Ct. 94, 35 L.Ed. 882; Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312, 14 S.Ct. 99, 37 L.Ed. 1093; McKinney v. Grant, 76 Kan. 779, 93 P. 180; Studebaker Corp. of America v. Hanson, 24 Wyo. Ann. Cas. 1917E, 557, 157 P. 582, 160 P. 336; Moline Plow Co. v. Rodgers, 53 Kan. ......
  • Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. Martin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 26, 1915
    ...following decisions of the Supreme Court of that state bearing upon the question: Powell v. Wallace, 44 Kan. 659, 25 P. 42; McKinney v. Grant, 76 Kan. 779, 93 P. 180; Arsdale v. Baldwin Piano Co., 90 Kan. 347, 133 P. 703. Powell v. Wallace, 44 Kan. 659, 25 P. 42, above, is much like the cas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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