McKinney v. Grant
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Geary district court; Oscar L. Moore, judge. STATEMENT. W. S. McKinney brought this action against James U. Grant and A. A. Flower by filing an ordinary petition in replevin to recover two pianos. The defendants joined issue by a general denial.
Read the full summary
Error from Geary district court; Oscar L. Moore, judge. STATEMENT. W. S. McKinney brought this action against James U. Grant and A. A. Flower by filing an ordinary petition in replevin to recover two pianos. The defendants joined issue by a general denial. The plaintiff claimed that he had the title and right of possession to the pianos, and that he had placed them in the possession of one W. J. Shillito for the purpose of sale only, in accordance with the terms of a written contract, a copy of which is as follows: “December 9, 1902. “The McKinney Music Company: “Gentlemen — I will take your…
1Opinion of the Court
*782The opinion of the court was delivered by
Smith, J.:
We are unable to agree with the construction of the written contract under which the pianos appear to have been consigned to Shillito in the written opinion filed in connection with the court’s instruction to the jury to return a verdict for the defendants. On the other hand we see nothing therein, unless it be the agreement in the fourth and fifth paragraphs to pay interest on the value of the pianos upon certain contingencies, to indicate that the contract is. other than the plaintiff claims for it — an arrangement under which the plaintiff…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Charles M. Stieff, Inc. v. City of San AntonioTexas Supreme Court · 1938
- Van Arsdale v. PeacockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
- Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. v. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
- Akin v. Baldwin Piano Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Darling & Co. v. PetriSupreme Court of Kansas · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.