Sumner v. Cook
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Franklin district court. Eeplevin, brought by Sumner, to recover the possession of “one American organ,” a musical instrument, which plaintiff claimed as general owner. The property was replevied and delivered to the plaintiff. The defendants, C. E. Cook and H. E. Tucker, alleged ownership in themselves, and they demanded a return of the property. At the trial in the district court, at the March term, 1873, the jury found generally “for the defendants.”
Read the full summary
Error from Franklin district court. Eeplevin, brought by Sumner, to recover the possession of “one American organ,” a musical instrument, which plaintiff claimed as general owner. The property was replevied and delivered to the plaintiff. The defendants, C. E. Cook and H. E. Tucker, alleged ownership in themselves, and they demanded a return of the property. At the trial in the district court, at the March term, 1873, the jury found generally “for the defendants.” Judgment on the verdict. The verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find for the defendants.” Jud0,nent was then entered by the…
1Opinion of the Court
*Brewer, J.
Two questions are in this case. The action in the district court was one of replevin. The property had been delivered to the plaintiff. The verdict was for the defendants. The judgment entered was that the defendants recover their costs. At the same term, on motion of defendants, the judgment was modified so as to include a return of the property. Upon the verdict the defendants were entitled .to such a judgment. Kayser v. Bauer, 5 Kan. *211. A failure of the jury to find the value did not invalidate the verdict, or prevent a judgment for the return. Marix v. Franke, 9 Kan. *132. The court…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Plant v. McEwenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823