First National Bank v. Tufts
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Pawnee District Court. This action was instituted by James W. Tufts, who claimed to be the owner of a soda-water fountain and apparatus, against The First National ■ Panic of Larned, to recover damages for an alleged conversion of the property. The answer of the bank was a general denial.
Read the full summary
Error from Pawnee District Court. This action was instituted by James W. Tufts, who claimed to be the owner of a soda-water fountain and apparatus, against The First National ■ Panic of Larned, to recover damages for an alleged conversion of the property. The answer of the bank was a general denial. At the trial, the testimony showed that on December 30, 1887, Tufts made a conditional sale of the fountain to H. C. Lichtenthaler, for about $1,375, payments to be made in accordance with a number of notes executed by Lichtenthaler in Tufts’s favor, 'and the notes and the agreement specified that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HoktoN, C. J.:
It is insisted that the verdict and the judgment were contrary to the evidence and the law. The contention is, that there having been no conversion or interference with the rights of Tufts by the bank prior to the taking effect of chapter 255, Laws of 1889, and the bank being then in possession of the property for the purpose of securing the indebtedness to it, it was and became a creditor, with a lien thereon against which Tufts could have no right, under the provisions of the act, until he had complied with its requirements. It is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cameron, Hull & Co. v. MarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Allen v. McCallaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. MurraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- Paul v. LingenfelterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
- Ponder v. Beeler Motor Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936