Frick Co. v. Fry
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Reno district court; Peter J. Galle, judge. STATEMENT. Two actions in replevin were commenced by the Frick Company against Joseph D. Fry — one as owner, to recover the possession of one J. I. Case traction-engine, the other as mortgagee, to recover the possession of a thrashing outfit, consisting of a traction-engine and separator, with attachments, and also two horses and nine head of cattle.
Read the full summary
Error from Reno district court; Peter J. Galle, judge. STATEMENT. Two actions in replevin were commenced by the Frick Company against Joseph D. Fry — one as owner, to recover the possession of one J. I. Case traction-engine, the other as mortgagee, to recover the possession of a thrashing outfit, consisting of a traction-engine and separator, with attachments, and also two horses and nine head of cattle. Subsequently the actions were consolidated in the district court and tried as one cause. The defendant recovered judgment for a return of the J. I. Case engine and the horses and cattle, or…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Greene, J.:
It is contended that the court erred in overruling plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s evidence, because of a failure of proof that he had returned or offered to return the machine to the place where he had received it. Under the original contract, before *400the defendant could rescind he was required to return the machine.
The law is. well settled in this state that where a machine is purchased, as this machine was, there can be no rescission until the property is returned to the place where it was received. The machine in question was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Fairbanks v. . Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Twin City Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co. v. SchierkolkSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917