Willard v. Whinfield
| Decision Date | 01 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | 3 |
| Citation | 2 Kan.App. 53,43 P. 314 |
| Parties | FRANK G. WILLARD v. GEORGE C. WHINFIELD |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Opinion Filed January 17, 1896.
MEMORANDUM.--Error from Rice district court; ANSEL R. CLARK judge. Action by George C. Whinfield against Frank G Willard. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings the case here. Affirmed. The opinion herein, filed January 17 1896, states the material facts.
Judgment affirmed.
Bailey & Foley, and J. Warner Mills, for plaintiff in error.
Samuel Jones, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This is an action brought in the district court of Rice county, Kansas, by George C. Whinfield, as plaintiff, against Frank G. Willard, as defendant, to recover the damages sustained by said Whinfield by reason of the conversion of 101 head of his sheep by said Willard, and also to recover the amount of an alleged agister's lien upon about 1,400 sheep, claimed to have been wrongfully taken from the possession of said Whinfield by said Willard. Willard claimed the right to the immediate possession of the sheep by virtue of a chattel mortgage given by J. M. Ostrander to said Willard. Whinfield claimed that the larger portion of the 101 sheep was bought by Ostrander of one Moore after the execution of the Willard mortgage and was not included therein, and had been bought by said Whinfield of said Ostrander. He also claimed to have been feeding and caring for the 1,400 sheep which were included in the Willard mortgage under a contract with the mortgagor, Ostrander. The 101 sheep were valued by Whinfield at $ 353.50, and the feed bill was alleged to be $ 492.90. The case was tried with a jury, and a verdict returned by them in favor of Whinfield for the sum of $ 448.25, and judgment for said amount and the costs was rendered against said Willard, and he brings the case here for review.
One of the errors complained of by the plaintiff in error is in the refusal of the court to give the instructions asked for by him. The instructions asked for are quite long, and those given by the court cover about 20 closely typewritten pages and will not be set forth in this opinion. We have carefully considered the instructions given and those refused, and find that those given cover all the material and proper points covered by those refused. No material error prejudicial to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gould v. Hill
...a cause of action. (Lydell v. First Bank of Joseph, 65 Ore. 243, 132 P. 518; Becker v. Brown, 65 Neb. 264, 91 N.W. 178; Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kan. App. 53, 43 P. 314; Kroll v. Ernest, 34 Neb. 482, 51 N.W. Weber v. Whetstone, 53 Neb. 371, 73 N.W. 695; Barse Livestock Com. v. Adams, 2 Ind. ......
-
Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co.
...some support among the cases. Case v. Allen, 21 Kan. 217, 30 Am. Rep. 425; Corning v. Ashley, 51 Hun, 483, 4 N.Y.S. 255; Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kan.App. 53, 43 P. 314. the construction of the statute importance is rightly attached to the use of the words, "at the request of the owner or le......
-
Monthly Instalment Loan Co. v. Skellet Company
...among the cases. Case v. Allen, 21 Kan. 217, 30 Am. Rep. 425; Corning v. Ashley, 51 Hun, 483, 4 N. Y. Supp. 255; Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kan. App. 53, 43 Pac. 314. In the construction of the statute importance is rightly attached to the use of the words, "at the request of the owner or lega......
-
Monthly Installment Loan Co. v. Skellet Co.
...support among the cases. Case v. Allen, 21 Kan. 217, 30 Am. Rep. 425;Corning v. Ashley, 51 Hun, 483, 4 N. Y. Supp. 255;Willard v. Whinfield, 2 Kan. App. 53, 43 Pac. 314. In the construction of the statute importance is rightly attached to the use of the words ‘at the request of the owner or......