Simpson v. Voss
| Decision Date | 03 January 1884 |
| Citation | 31 Kan. 227,1 P. 601 |
| Parties | B. F. SIMPSON AND J. H. SMITH v. JOHN T. VOSS |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Bourbon District Court.
ACTION by Voss against B. F. Simpson and J. H. Smith, to recover $ 12,765 damages for the seizure and conversion of a general stock of merchandise, etc. Trial at the May Term, 1883, and verdict for the plaintiff for $ 7,672. New trial refused. (The record does not show that a judgment was entered on the verdict.) The defendants bring the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment affirmed.
Vansyckel & Wells, and Blair & Perry, for plaintiffs in error.
John T Voss, defendant in error, for himself.
OPINION
The defendant in error (plaintiff below) filed his petition in the district court of Crawford county, alleging, inter alia, that on the 24th of January, 1883, he was the owner of and in exclusive possession of a brick store building of the value of $ 5,000, and of the rental value of $ 80 per month, situate in Girard, Crawford county, in this state; that he owned and had therein a general stock of merchandise of the value of $ 12,000, and also a safe of the value of $ 225; that on said 24th day of January, the defendants (plaintiffs in error) without right or authority and against his will and consent, entered the store-room in his brick building and took forcible possession of the premises, and then and there wholly deprived him of the same, and then and there converted all of said merchandise, together with the said safe, to their own use and benefit.
The answer to the petition contained a general denial, and also set forth that the property taken was not the property of the plaintiff below, but the property of one Curtis, against whom Adler & Sons, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, had a large claim for goods; that the transfer of the goods from Curtis to plaintiff below was fraudulent, and made with the intent to cheat, defraud and delay the creditors of Curtis; that Adler & Sons, learning these facts, brought their action in the United States circuit court for the district of Kansas, to recover judgment on their claim against Curtis; that in that action they obtained an attachment against the property of Curtis; that the order of attachment was delivered to one of the defendants, who was United States marshal, and by him delivered to the other, his deputy, and that by virtue of the order of attachment they took possession of the stock of merchandise.
To this, the plaintiff below filed a reply containing a general denial. Subsequent to the filing of the reply, the circuit court discharged the order of attachment issued against Curtis, upon the ground that the alleged causes therefor were untrue. Thereafter, with the leave of the court, the defendant below filed a supplemental or amended reply setting up the dissolution of the attachment proceedings. A demurrer was filed to this reply, which was overruled. Then the defendants, with leave of the court, amended their answer, and also filed a supplemental answer to the plaintiff's amended reply, denying generally the averments thereof, and alleging that the case of Adler & Sons against Curtis was still pending in the United States circuit court and undetermined.
I. It is alleged that the court erred in allowing the amended or supplemental reply to be filed, and in not sustaining the demurrer thereto. We think otherwise. The answer to the petition set up the attachment proceedings which were issued out of the United States circuit court as a justification of the trespasses charged against the defendants below, and alleged that all the acts done by them were done under color of law and official authority. Section 144 of the code expressly authorizes that either party to the action may be allowed, on notice, and on such terms as to costs as the court may prescribe, to file a supplemental petition or reply alleging facts material to the case occurring after the former petition, answer, or reply. The supplemental reply was properly filed, as it alleged facts material to the case occurring after the former reply. Supplemental pleadings, like amended pleadings, are largely within the control...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reader v. Farriss
...Kansas and one Iowa case, which states, it seems, have similar statutes. Williams v. Moorehead et al., 33 Kan. 609, 7 P. 226, Simpson v. Bose, 31 Kan. 227, Flint v. Dulany, 37 Kan. 332, 15 P. 208; Gribben v. Clement, 141 Iowa 144 119 N.W. 596, 133 Am. St. Rep. 157. We have examined these ca......
-
Wynnewood Cotton Oil Co. v. Moore
...may be filed within the provisions of the foregoing section. Porter v. Wells, 6 Kan. 448; Clark v. Spencer, 14 Kan. 398 ; Simpson v. Voss, 31 Kan. 227, 1 P. 601; Williams v. Moorehead, 33 Kan. 609, 7 P. 226; Drielling v. Bank, 43 Kan. 197, 25 P. 94 . See especially the case of Williams v. M......
-
Crawford v. McSpadden
...no such property under a writ in fact void, issued without authority of law, although it might be fair upon its face. In Simpson v. Voss, 31 Kan. 227, 1 P. 601, the held that after the attachment was dissolved a sheriff could not justify his seizure of personal property thereunder upon the ......
- Merwin v. Hawker