Legal Opinion

Kennett v. Fickel

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 15, 1889PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error from Cloud District Court. Replevin. Judgment for plaintiff Fickel, at the October term, 1885. The defendant Kennett brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Johnston, J.:

This was an action of replevin brought by Catharine E. Fickel, to recover the possession of two mares alleged to be wrongfully detained by Homer Kennett, together with damages for their detention. The claim of the plaintiff was that she was the absolute owner of the mares, and that no one else had any interest or right of possession to them. The *212theory of the defendant appears to have been that the property was owned by the husband of the plaintiff, Geo. W. Fickel, and that it was included in a mortgage which he had given to the defendant.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wilson v. FullerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
  2. Yandle v. KingsburySupreme Court of Kansas · 1876

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ablah v. EymanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
  2. Payne v. McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1901
  3. First Nat. Bank of Lawton v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  4. Blair v. A. Johnson & SonsTennessee Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Ely v. HollowaySupreme Court of Kansas · 1915

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API