Townsdin v. Shrader
| Citation | 39 Kan. 286,18 P. 186 |
| Parties | W. H. TOWNSDIN v. W. E. SHRADER |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1888 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Error from Cloud District Court.
Judgment affirmed.
B. R Anderson, and Deck Houston, for plaintiff in error.
Sturges Kennett & Peck, for defendant in error.
OPINION
W. H. Townsdin, plaintiff in error, brought his action against W. E. Shrader, to recover the value of 412 bushels of corn. It is admitted that plaintiff took the corn in question, but the defendant contends that this controversy has been determined heretofore in an action between the parties. This cause arose from the following circumstances: The defendant wished to buy a quarter-section of land adjacent to his farm in Cloud county, of one Bailey; but, owing to some difficulty or ill-feeling between Bailey and Shrader, he determined to make his purchase through plaintiff, and it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff should buy the land for Shrader, and that Shrader, after the purchase was made, should deed a portion of his farm to Townsdin in exchange for the land bought of Bailey. Townsdin made the purchase for Shrader, he advancing $ 1,675, which was paid by plaintiff to Bailey as a part payment upon the farm. During the negotiations, one of Shrader's sons cut some young timber on land Shrader was to convey to plaintiff, and afterward there arose a disagreement between the parties about the cutting of the timber; and, after a great deal of negotiation and consulting, Townsdin refused to convey the land he bought of Bailey to Shrader; whereupon Shrader tendered him a deed of the land he had offered to convey, and an action was brought by Shrader for the specific performance of the contract, the petition stating the entire transaction. In the trial the judgment was against Shrader so far as his prayer for specific performance was concerned, but the court ordered Townsdin to return to Shrader the $ 1,675 advanced, with interest. At the time of the purchase of the land of Bailey by Townsdin, there was upon it an ungathered crop of corn. One-half was gathered by Shrader, and this action is brought to recover its value.
In the former trial of the case, the question of the damage to the property of Shrader by the cutting of the poles was submitted to the jury, and the court found in addition as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. Moore
...636 (Kan.) ; 1 Black on Judgments (2 Ed.) sec. 15; Tompkinson v. Willits Mfg. Co., 23 F. 895; McCreery v. Fuller, 63 Cal. 30; Townsdin v. Shrader, 39 Kan. 286; United States v. Parker, 120 U.S. 93, 30 L.Ed. Doan v. Bush, 198 S.W. 261; 15 R. C. L. p. 643, sec. 86; Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mini......
-
Idaho Gold Min. Co. v. Winchell
...67 Am. Dec. 89; McGee v. Sweeney, 84 Cal. 100, 23 P. 1117; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U.S. 556; Remar v. McKay, 35 F. 86; Townsdin v. Shrader, 39 Kan. 286, 18 P. 186; Southern P. R. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 48-53, 18 S.Ct. 18; Wolf River Lumber Co. v. Brown, 88 Wis. 638, 60 N.W. 996.)......
-
Smith v. Russ, 41347
...as to every matter actually litigated, and to every matter that might have been litigated in the original action. Citing: Townsdin v. Shrader, 39 Kan. 286, 18 P. 186; Sanford v. Oberlin College, 50 Kan. 342, 31 P. 1089; Dixon v. Caster, 65 Kan. 739, 70 P. 871; and Ullrich v. Bigger, 81 Kan.......
-
McEntire v. Williamson
... ... litigated, but of every matter which might have been offered ... to sustain or defeat the claim or demand. (Townsdin v ... Shrader, 39 Kan. 286, 18 P. 186; Sanford v. Oberlin ... College, 50 id. 342, 31 P. 1089; Hyatt v ... Challiss, 59 id. 422, 53 P. 467; ... ...