The Frick Company v. The Western Star Milling Company
Decision Date | 01 January 1893 |
Citation | 32 P. 1103,51 Kan. 370 |
Parties | THE FRICK COMPANY v. THE WESTERN STAR MILLING COMPANY |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Saline District Court.
THIS was an action brought by the Frick Company against the Western Star Milling Company for the conversion, in September and October, 1888, of 570 bushels of wheat, valued at $ 500 which the Frick Company claimed under a chattel mortgage dated the 9th of November, 1887, and executed to the Frick Company by Andrew Bachofer. The chattel mortgage embraced the two-thirds interest of 77 acres of growing wheat on the farm of S. P. Rinquest, in the county of Saline, in this state which Bachofer had rented. The mortgage contained the following provision: "The wheat is to be placed in garner, subject to the order of Frick Company, of Waynesboro Pa., and not to be disposed of without their consent, unless the past-due notes are first paid in full." Trial before the court, a jury having been waived. The court made the following findings of fact:
And thereon the court made the following conclusions of law:
Judgment was entered for the milling company against the Frick Company. It excepted, and brings the case here.
Garver & Bond, for plaintiff in error:
The court should have sustained the objection made to the introduction of testimony as to conversations which took place at the time the mortgage was executed, because it tended to contradict the written agreement at that time entered into by the parties. This testimony was fully and specifically objected to by plaintiff, on the ground that it was attempting by oral evidence to contradict the written instrument. That such testimony was inadmissible, for the reasons stated in the objection made to its introduction, we think is beyond any question or controversy in this court. Miller v. Edgerton, 38 Kan. 36; Topeka Mfg. Co. v. Hale, 39 id. 23; Schoen v. Sunderland, 39 id. 758; Windmill Co. v. Piercy, 41 id. 763; Smith v. Deere, 48 id. 416.
No question can be made that this mortgage held the wheat after it was threshed and placed in the granary, and that the mortgagee could follow it into the hands of a purchaser. Sims v. Mead, 29 Kan. 124; Muse v. Lehman, 30 id. 514.
The receipt of the wheat and the mixing of it with a large quantity of other wheat in its elevator was a conversion by the defendant, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover its value. Shepard v. Pratt, 16 Kan. 209; Sims v. Mead, 29 id. 129; 16 id. 43; 13 N.H. 494; 9 Allen, 171.
The conditions of the mortgage not being complied with, if the lien had not been waived or released by the mortgagee, the wheat passed into the hands of the milling company subject to such lien, and the mortgagee could maintain this action for the value of the wheat so received and converted. Brown v. Campbell, 44 Kan. 237; Howard v. Burns, 44 id. 543.
C. A. Hiller, and Hutchinson & Banks, for defendant in error:
Oral evidence is admissible to prove a new and distinct agreement to change a written agreement. Greenl. Ev., 12th ed., § 303; Abbott's Trial Ev., p. 370; Piatt's Adm'r v. United States, 22 Wall. 506, and cases cited; Shaffer v. McKanna, 24 Kan. 22; Armel v. Layton, 29 id. 576; 125 Pa. 268; 147 Mass. 46; 45 Wis. 36.
A general objection to evidence is insufficient. Humphrey v. Collins, 23 Kan. 549; K. P. Rly. Co. v. Pointer, 9 id. 620; Beebe v. Bull, 12 Wend. 504.
Exceptions to testimony en masse are unavailing. If a party excepts to the entire testimony of a witness, without specifying the portions that are inadmissible, the exceptions are not reviewable in this court. Beebe v. Bull, 12 Wend. 504; Penn. Aid Society v. Corlay, 11 Ins. Law J. 493; Walker v. Armstrong, 2 Kan. 198; K. P. Rly. Co. v. Pointer, 9 id. 620; Gano v. Wells, 36 id. 688; Smythe v. Parsons, 37 id. 83.
The same rule should obtain to general objections and exceptions to evidence as to general exceptions to instructions. Fullenwider v. Ewing, 25 Kan. 69; Myer v. Moon, 45 id. 580.
It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove a demand and refusal in order to sustain this action against the defendant. Cooley, Torts, pp. 452-454; Farrer v. Rollins, 37 Vt. 295; Neill, Torts, 592.
There can be no conversion of property while in possession of a party who came rightfully by it, without the exercise of such a claim of right or dominion over it as assumes a right to hold the possession, so as to deprive the other party of it, for in such a case it is the unlawful detention that constitutes the conversion. Fernald v. Chase, 37 Me. 289; Boobier v. Boobier, 39 id. 406; Shoemaker v. Simpson, 16 Kan. 43. In the case at bar no conversion was shown to exist in law, and none was shown by the evidence.
The mixture of this wheat with the wheat of the defendant, although not capable of an actual separation, does not militate against this position. Piazzek v. White, 23 Kan. 621; Muse v. Lehman, 30 id. 514-518; Ryder v. Hathaway, 38 Mass. 298, or 21 Pick. 298.
Where a parol license is given, on the faith of which money is expended upon it by the licensee, the licensor will be estopped from revoking the license. Lane v. Miller, 27 Ind 265; Ogle v. Ogle, 55 id. 130; Buchanan v. L. C. & S.W. Rld. Co., 71 id. 265; Nowlan v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Security Bank of Pocatello v. Zaring Farm & Livestock Co.
... ... ZARING FARM & LIVESTOCK COMPANY, a Corporation, et al., Respondents, and ... 835, 70 L. R. A. 554, Frick Co. v. Western Star Milling ... Co., 51 Kan ... ...
-
United States v. Christensen
...& Co. v. Washburn, 141 Ill. 153, 29 N.E. 558; Abbeville Live Stock Co. v. Walden, 209 Ala. 315, 96 So. 237; Frick Co. v. Western Star Mill Co., 51 Kan. 370, 32 P. 1103; Maier v. Freeman, 112 Cal. 8, 44 P. 357, 53 Am.St. Rep. 151; 97 A.L.R. Here, however, another factor must be considered, n......
-
Knollin v. Jones
... ... as Evans-Snider-Buel Company knew of the transaction they ... informed ... secs. 456, 459; Frick v. Western Star Milling Co., ... 51 Kan. 370, 32 ... ...
-
Phelan v. Brothers
...Mort. Sec. Co. v. Great Western Elevator Co., 6 N.D. 407, 71 N.W. 130; Drexel v. Murphy, 59 Neb. 210, 80 N.W. 813; Frick Co. v. Western Star Mill Co., 51 Kan. 370, 32 P. 1103. ¶7 We have been unable to find any authority, nor has counsel cited any, sustaining instruction No. 8, in which the......