Shockey v. Johntz
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Memorandum.— Error from Dickinson district court; James Humphrey, judge. Action for conversion of growing crops by John Johntz and others, partners as Malott & C’o., against Isaac Shockey and Daniel E. Snider. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring the case to this court.
Read the full summary
Memorandum.— Error from Dickinson district court; James Humphrey, judge. Action for conversion of growing crops by John Johntz and others, partners as Malott & C’o., against Isaac Shockey and Daniel E. Snider. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring the case to this court. The statement of facts, as made by Gilkeson, P. J., is as follows : This action was brought by John Johntz, A. W. Rice, T. H. Malott, D. R. Gordon, and W. B. Giles, partners as Malott & Co., to recover the value of a crop of wheat alleged to have been converted by plaintiffs in error, Isaac Shockey and Daniel E. Snider,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
(xllkeson, P. J. :
The plaintiffs in error contend that, by reason of the terms of the lease, Kalebaugh having the right to renew the same on March 1, 1890, for a further period of two years, and having remained upon the land for some time after March 1, 1890, this gave him the right to the crop, and that his mortgagees succeeded to his rights by virtue of the mortgage. We cannot agree with plaintiffs in error. In Smith v. Hague, 25 Kan. 246 — a case where a crop of wheat was planted upon the land after a judgment had been rendered decreeing a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beckman v. SikesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- Goodwin v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Smith v. HagueSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Mohr v. C. & N. W. R. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Skilton v. HarrelCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897
- Rardin v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1900