Paulsen v. Hall
| Decision Date | 04 May 1888 |
| Citation | 18 P. 225,39 Kan. 365 |
| Parties | R. PAULSEN v. MARY E. HALL |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Osage District Court.
ACTION by Mary E. Hall against Paulsen, to recover $ 300 damages for the loss of a certain stallion sold by the defendant to plaintiff. Trial at the November term, 1886, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 171.15. The defendant brings the case to this court. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
William Thomson, for plaintiff in error.
Ellis Lewis, and A. H. Case, for defendant in error.
OPINION
Mary E Hall brought this action against R. Paulsen, alleging that on October 28, 1885, Paulsen having in his possession and claiming to own a certain stallion, then sold and delivered the same to her for $ 158, and that he warranted and agreed with her that he had a good title to the stallion, and a good right to sell the same. She further alleged that she bought the stallion relying on his warranty of title, but that in fact he was not the owner of the stallion, and had no title thereto, and that the property was then owned by Mary A. Million, who had the title thereto and the right of possession, and who had deprived her of the animal; and she further claimed damages for it in the sum of $ 300 for the loss. She recovered a judgment before the justice of the peace where the action was begun, and an appeal was taken to the district court, where a verdict and judgment was again rendered in her favor, for $ 171.15. Paulsen seeks a reversal of that judgment. He complains of the ruling of the court upon the competency of testimony, that instructions requested by him were refused, and that the verdict was unsustained by the evidence.
It appears that Paulsen purchased the horse at a judicial sale. He instituted an action before a justice of the peace of Burlingame township, in Osage county, against S.D. Million and Mary A. Million, for the recovery of money, and the stallion, among other property, was attached. Subsequently he. recovered a judgment, and the justice of the peace issued an order of sale to sell the attached property. The stallion was seized in Dragoon township, and was advertised and sold to Paulsen, in Burlingame township, of the same county. He retained possession and control of the animal until the sale to the defendant in error. Shortly after this sale Mary A. Million recovered possession of the horse, and later she recovered a judgment against Mary E. Hall for the use of the horse. while she held possession of him. This was done upon the theory that the title of Mary A. Million to the horse was not divested by the judicial sale, for the reason that the horse was seized in one township and advertised and sold in a different one. The law requires that all property sold under process issued by a justice of the peace shall be advertised and sold in the township where it is seized, and hence the sale to Paulsen was invalid. The principal controversy between the parties to this action was whether Paulsen expressly or impliedly warranted the title to the horse at the time of the sale to Mary E. Hall. He claims that he expressly refused at the time of the negotiation to warrant the title, and that he told J. D. Hall, who made the purchase for his wife, that she must take the horse upon her own responsibility and risk. But this claim is directly negatived by the findings of the jury.
A series of instructions was requested by the plaintiff in error and refused by the court. We deem it unnecessary to examine them in detail. In the main they correctly stated the law; but the general charge which was given embraced substantially all that was requested, and we think all that was necessary for a fair and full submission of the case. Upon the question of implied warranty, the learned court charged the jury that--...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v. Crump
...or wife of the party. Wichita & W. Railroad Co. v. Kuhn, 38 Kan. 104, 16 P. 75; Pfefferle v. State, 39 Kan. 128, 17 P. 828; Paulsen v. Hall, 39 Kan. 365, 18 P. 225. Both Mr. and Mrs. Crump testified positively to facts showing that she was under his express direction, acting as his agent in......
-
Wood v. Stewart
...affirmation by him that the property is his own, and implies also a warranty of title by him unless the contrary is shown (Paulsen v. Hall, 39 Kan. 365, 18 P. 225), also the sale and written assignment of an oil and gas lease, under terms and conditions containing a covenant that the assign......
-
Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v. Crump
... ... or wife of the party. Wichita & W. Railroad Co. v ... Kuhn, 38 Kan. 104, 16 P. 75; Pfefferle v ... State, 39 Kan. 128, 17 P. 828; Paulsen v. Hall, ... 39 Kan. 365, 18 P. 225. Both Mr. and Mrs. Crump testified ... positively to facts showing that she was under his express ... ...
-
The Guarantee Title and Trust Company v. The Viola State Bank
...assignments. That there was an implied warranty of title appears to be conceded. The doctrine applies to tangible chattels ( Paulsen v. Hall, 39 Kan. 365, 18 P. 225), properly applies to choses in action such as bonds. (See Ratcliff v. Paul, 114 Kan. 506, 220 P. 279; 9 C. J. 60; 24 R. C. L.......