McKinney v. Purcell
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sumner District Court. Action brought by McKinney and two others, partners, against Purcell and another. At the April Term, 1882, the district court sustained defendant’s motion to discharge certain attached property, which ruling the plaintiffs bring here. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
The facts of this case are as follows: On the 20th of December, 1880, plaintiffs in error (who were plaintiffs below) filed in the district court of Sumner county, their petition against defendant in error and W. C. Campbell, setting forth in substance that defendant Campbell was indebted to plaintiffs -for goods sold by them to him; that after said debt was contracted, Campbell sold his stock of goods to defendant Purcell, who as part payment for said goods agreed in writing to pay the debt of plaintiffs; and praying judgment against both…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Roberts v. DunnIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Acker v. WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Kayser v. BauerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1869
- Gross v. BogardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Tyler v. SaffordSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Wilson Motor Co. v. DunnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Mohr v. LanganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Farmers' State Bank of Arkansas City v. StephensonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Keller v. American Chain Co., Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Bisconer v. BillingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.