Robinson v. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry-Goods Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtHARRISON
Citation50 Neb. 795,70 N.W. 378
Decision Date03 March 1897
PartiesROBINSON ET AL. v. KILPATRICK-KOCH DRY-GOODS CO.

50 Neb. 795
70 N.W. 378

ROBINSON ET AL.
v.
KILPATRICK-KOCH DRY-GOODS CO.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 3, 1897.



Syllabus by the Court.

1. A chattel mortgage creates a lien on the property described therein, but does not pass the legal title thereto.

2. A party will be allowed to amend his petition in error to cover a point which, so far as the record discloses, was presented in the trial court.

3. The introduction in evidence of a chattel mortgage, in which is described property the subject of an allegation of general ownership and right of possession in the plaintiff in an affidavit and petition in a replevin action, is not proof of such allegation.


Error to district court, Buffalo county; Bates, Judge.

Action by the Kilpatrick-Koch Dry-Goods Company against Thomas Robinson and John Wilson. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Reversed.

[70 N.W. 378]

Greene & Hostetler, Dryden & Main, and Geo. E. Evans, for plaintiffs in error.

Calkins & Pratt, for defendant in error.


HARRISON, J.

It appears herein that, some time prior to and during the year 1890, W. L. Randall was engaged in mercantile business in the village of Gibbon, Buffalo county, this state. In the course of such business, he became indebted to a number of wholesale dealers for goods and merchandise, including the Kilpatrick-Koch Dry-Goods Company, defendant in error in this cause. November 20, 1890, the defendant in error obtained from Randall a chattel mortgage on his stock of merchandise, to secure the payment of his indebtedness to the company; and on the same date other chattel mortgages in favor of other parties and firms were executed by Randall, a number of which were subsequently, together with the accounts or notes the payment of which they were given to secure, assigned to defendant in error. The company took possession of the stock of goods under its mortgage, and other parties instituted actions and attachment proceedings. In some of the actions, judgments were obtained and execution issued. After service of the writs of execution and attachment on the stock of merchandise by the plaintiffs in error (one of them the sheriff of Buffalo county, and the other a constable), the defendants in error commenced this, an action of replevin against the officers, to recover the possession of the merchandise. A trial of the issues in the case resulted in a verdict and judgment favorable to the company. The unsuccessful parties have prosecuted error proceedings to this court.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 9 Marzo 1908
    ...the record, proper to be considered on error. (R. R. Co. v. Ingalls, 13 Neb. 279; Spencer v. Thistle, 13 Neb. 201; Robinson v. Kilpatrick, 50 Neb. 795; Hildebrant v. Brewer, 5 Tex. 566; Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 7 Ohio St. 88; Humphries v. Spafford, 14 Neb. 488; Bazzo v. Wallace, 16 Neb. 293; Scot......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Drawbaugh, No. 33547
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 23 Julio 1954
    ...general ownership in an action in replevin is not supported by proof of special ownership. See Robinson v. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co., 50 Neb. 795, 70 N.W. A plaintiff in replevin must prove the title as he pleads it. See Suckstorf v. Butterfield, 54 Neb. 757, 74 N.W. 1076. See, also, Wi......
  • Fuel Exploration, Inc. v. Novotny, No. 84-433
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 11 Octubre 1985
    ...at all. (The rule is also found in Griffing v. Curtis, 50 Neb. 334, 69 N.W. 968 (1897), and in Robinson v. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co., 50 Neb. 795, 70 N.W. 378 (1897). It appears, however, that in Griffing the action failed because insufficient facts to support the claim of special owner......
  • Paxton v. Learn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 23 Junio 1898
    ...Neb. 704, 66 N. W. 656;Raymond v. Miller, 50 Neb. 506, 70 N. W. 52;Griffing v. Curtis, 50 Neb. 334, 69 N. W. 968;Robinson v. Kilpatrick, 50 Neb. 795, 70 N. W. 378;Norcross v. Baldwin, 50 Neb. 885, 70 N. W. 511;Hudelson v. Bank, 51 Neb. 557, 71 N. W. 304;Bolin v. Fines, 51 Neb. 650, 71 N. W.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Riordan v. Horton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 9 Marzo 1908
    ...the record, proper to be considered on error. (R. R. Co. v. Ingalls, 13 Neb. 279; Spencer v. Thistle, 13 Neb. 201; Robinson v. Kilpatrick, 50 Neb. 795; Hildebrant v. Brewer, 5 Tex. 566; Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 7 Ohio St. 88; Humphries v. Spafford, 14 Neb. 488; Bazzo v. Wallace, 16 Neb. 293; Scot......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Drawbaugh, No. 33547
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 23 Julio 1954
    ...general ownership in an action in replevin is not supported by proof of special ownership. See Robinson v. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co., 50 Neb. 795, 70 N.W. A plaintiff in replevin must prove the title as he pleads it. See Suckstorf v. Butterfield, 54 Neb. 757, 74 N.W. 1076. See, also, Wi......
  • Fuel Exploration, Inc. v. Novotny, No. 84-433
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 11 Octubre 1985
    ...at all. (The rule is also found in Griffing v. Curtis, 50 Neb. 334, 69 N.W. 968 (1897), and in Robinson v. Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co., 50 Neb. 795, 70 N.W. 378 (1897). It appears, however, that in Griffing the action failed because insufficient facts to support the claim of special owner......
  • Paxton v. Learn
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 23 Junio 1898
    ...Neb. 704, 66 N. W. 656;Raymond v. Miller, 50 Neb. 506, 70 N. W. 52;Griffing v. Curtis, 50 Neb. 334, 69 N. W. 968;Robinson v. Kilpatrick, 50 Neb. 795, 70 N. W. 378;Norcross v. Baldwin, 50 Neb. 885, 70 N. W. 511;Hudelson v. Bank, 51 Neb. 557, 71 N. W. 304;Bolin v. Fines, 51 Neb. 650, 71 N. W.......
  • 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