Minneapolis Threshing MacHine Company v. Francisco
Decision Date | 08 May 1920 |
Docket Number | 22,151,22,655 |
Citation | 189 P. 981,106 Kan. 704 |
Parties | THE MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY, Appellee, v. J. W. FRANCISCO, Appellant. THE MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE COMPANY, Appellee, v. J. W. FRANCISCO, Appellant |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1920.
Appeals from Rooks district court; CHARLES I. SPARKS, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. REPLEVIN--Verified Answer--No Proof that Plaintiff was Incorporated--Question First Raised in Supreme Court--Objection too Late. Where the incorporation of the plaintiff is alleged in a petition, each and every material averment of which is denied by an answer verified by an affidavit which says that the statements contained in the answer are true, and no evidence is introduced to prove that the plaintiff is incorporated, nor is the attention of the court specifically challenged to the absence of such evidence, and the incorporation of the plaintiff does not appear to have been questioned on the trial, and the question seems to be first raised in the supreme court, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff will not be reversed.
2. SAME--When Demand is Unnecessary. In an action in replevin, demand is unnecessary where possession by the defendant has been obtained wrongfully.
3. SAME--Defective Affidavit--Defect Not Called to Attention of Trial Court--Too Late on Appeal. A judgment in an action in replevin will not be reversed on account of a defect in the affidavit therefor, where the defect was not called to the attention of the trial court, and could have been cured by amendment.
4. SAME--Excluded Evidence--Not Produced on Motion for New Trial. Excluded evidence cannot be considered on appeal where that evidence is not produced on the motion for a new trial.
5. SAME--Written Contract--Cannot be Varied by Parol Evidence. A written contract cannot be varied, altered or contradicted by proof of an oral agreement on the same subject, made at the same time, and if the oral agreement is made subsequently, there must be a consideration therefor.
W. B. Ham, of Stockton, for the appellant.
David Ritchie, of Salina, and O. O. Osborne, of Stockton, for the appellee.
This appeal has been docketed two times. The notice of appeal has been filed two times, and was docketed each time. There is but one action and but one appeal.
The plaintiff commenced this action, one in replevin, to recover a tractor engine from the defendant. The cause was tried by a jury, and at the close of the evidence the jury was directed to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered accordingly. The defendant appeals.
The defendant, on about June 15, 1914, ordered a secondhand tractor engine from the plaintiff. The order contained the following provision:
"It is expressly agreed that the Warranties and conditions herein contained as to power, capacity, construction or durability do not apply to rebuilt or secondhand machinery ordered herein or hereby sold."
Notes were given, and to secure their payment the defendant gave to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage on the engine. The defendant in his answer pleaded:
The defendant further pleaded a number of breaches of the oral warranty, the damages caused to him thereby, and asked recovery therefor in the sum of $ 4,683.17, and for $ 1,000 exemplary damages. The defendant failed to make all the payments provided for in the notes given by him, and in a written statement dated November 9, 1915, recited:
This writing was pleaded in the plaintiff's reply to the defendant's answer and cross petition. The defendant in a reply to the answer of the plaintiff admitted that he signed an instrument similar to that set out in the plaintiff's answer to the cross petition, but said he did not know whether in fact the exhibit was a true copy of the instrument signed by him. The defendant further pleaded that he was induced to sign this instrument by the oral promise and agreement of the plaintiff that it would prepare and send to the defendant a written agreement authorizing him to take the engine to any state or any county in any state, into which he might desire to take it; that he might sell or trade the engine without the oral or written consent of the plaintiff; and that the defendant might have all the time he desired to pay for the engine. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff never furnished the defendant such written agreement; that the oral promise and agreement was the inducement to the defendant to sign the written instrument; and that the oral promises were a part of the instrument of which that set out in the answer of the plaintiff purported to be a copy. The defendant failed to pay the renewal notes mentioned in the writing dated November 9, 1915. The plaintiff under its chattel mortgage took possession of the engine; the defendant soon thereafter took the engine from the plaintiff. The plaintiff then commenced this action.
1. The plaintiff alleged that it was a corporation. There was no evidence introduced to prove that allegation. The defendant argues that because the plaintiff failed to prove that fact, the judgment must be reversed. The answer contained the following:
"The defendant denies each and every material averment of plaintiff's petition except such averments as are hereinafter specifically admitted."
The defendant admitted that he purchased the engine of the plaintiff and that he executed the notes and mortgage, but did not admit the incorporation of the plaintiff. The answer was lengthy and contained many allegations, and was verified as follows:
"J. W. Francisco on his oath says he has heard read the foregoing, his answer, and affiant says the statements therein contained are true so far as he has actual knowledge of them, and that all statements therein contained are true as he verily believes."
This language did not directly and specifically put in issue the incorporation of the plaintiff, nor is it certain that this fact was thereby put in issue. (Kimble v. Bunny, 61 Kan. 665, 60...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arensman v. Kitch
... ... Smith, 156 Kan. 512, 134 P.2d ... 408; Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Francisco, ... 106 Kan. 704, 189 ... ...
-
Arkansas River Gas Co. v. Molk
... ... Action ... by the Arkansas River Gas Company against Isador Molk. From a ... judgment overruling a ... Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Francisco, 106 ... Kan. 704, 707, ... ...
-
Turner v. Williams
... ... charge of the cost of threshing. He alleged that $ 1,706.98 ... of the money in Williams' ... thereto. (Threshing Machine Co. v. Francisco, 106 ... Kan. 704, 708, 709, 189 P. 981.) ... process may be laid in the hands of a bank or trust company, ... the same as any other corporation. In this connection ... ...
-
Lindberg v. Pence View Farming Co.
... ... Florian Lindberg against the Pence View Farming Company ... and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff ... judgment on appeal." See, also, Minneapolis ... Threshing Machine Co. v. Francisco, 106 Kan. 704, 189 ... ...