Bundrem v. Denn
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Chase District Court. ActioN brought by Bundrem against Derm, to recover $1,200, the value of goods alleged to have been by the defendant unlawfully converted to his own use. At the May Term, 1880, the court sustained defendant’s motion to discharge the attachment which had been granted in the action. This ruling the plaintiff brings here.
Read the full summary
Error from Chase District Court. ActioN brought by Bundrem against Derm, to recover $1,200, the value of goods alleged to have been by the defendant unlawfully converted to his own use. At the May Term, 1880, the court sustained defendant’s motion to discharge the attachment which had been granted in the action. This ruling the plaintiff brings here. The opinion states the facts. 1. If any liability was incurred at all, under the pleadings and facts, it was the result of a conversion of the goods of the principal by his agent; and if the agent incurred a liability by so doing, he was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HgetON, C. J.:
On the 26th day of March, 1880, the plaintiff in error commenced this action in the district court of Chase county, to recover from the defendant in error the sum of $1,200, the value of goods alleged to have been wrongfully and unlawfully converted to his own use by the defendant, while acting as the agent of the plaintiff. At the same time, plaintiff obtained an attachment against the property of the defendant upon an affidavit alleging two grounds:
1st, That the defendant fraudulently incurred the liability for which the action was…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Williamson v. Eastern B. & L. Ass'nSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1899
- Newell v. WhitwellMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Sonnesyn v. AkinNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- Rullman v. HulseSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Stapleton v. OrrSupreme Court of Kansas · 1890
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.