Legal Opinion

Paul v. Lingenfelter

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 7, 1913No. 18,244PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Sumner district court.-

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

The sole question in this case is whether an attaching creditor may acquire a lien as against title notes covering the property which are unrecorded but of which he has notice.

The trial court instructed the jury that if before he procured the attachment upon the corn binder in question, Bell, the creditor, knew that plaintiffs held title notes against the machine or had notice of such facts as would put a prudent man upon inquiry, then plaintiffs would be entitled to recover in this action against the officer holding the property under the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cameron, Hull & Co. v. MarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
  2. Corbin v. KincaidSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
  3. Geiser Manufacturing Co. v. MurraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
  4. Neerman v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
  5. First National Bank v. TuftsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Geppelt v. Middle West Stone Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  2. In Re Bell Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930
  3. Abernathy v. MaddenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1914
  4. State v. WebbSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
  5. Craig v. Industrial Acceptance Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API