Brimm v. Long
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from, Doniphan District Court. Action of replevin brought by Long, defendant in error (plaintiff below), against Brimm, plaintiff in error (defendant below),.on June 11th, 1877, to recover the possession of a span of mules, which Long claimed by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by one J. W. Bailey to said Long.
Read the full summary
Error from, Doniphan District Court. Action of replevin brought by Long, defendant in error (plaintiff below), against Brimm, plaintiff in error (defendant below),.on June 11th, 1877, to recover the possession of a span of mules, which Long claimed by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by one J. W. Bailey to said Long. The answer of Brimm denied the wrongful detention of the mules, and set up that-he had bought them of Bailey, with the consent of Long, under an agi’eement between all the parties that, when Bailey should pay Long $250 in corn, Long was to release the property from the lien…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
It is alleged the trial court committed error in admitting evidence that the defendant in error paid $30 as attorney’s fees to secure the corn he received of Bailey, and that the legal proceedings concerning the corn were in a condition to be taken for review to the supreme court. Again, it is alleged that the court erred in instructing the jury they should find in favor of said defendant in error, unless it was shown that Brimm had tendered him sufficient money to make the amount of $250 and the $30; and had further tendered him a bond…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. LongSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880