White Sewing Machine Co. v. Wait
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Saline District Court. At the November Term, 1879, of the district court, Waitr as defendant, recovered a judgment against The White Sewing Machine Co., as plaintiff, which brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion. The district court erred in not reversing the order and judgment of the probate judge.
Read the full summary
Error from Saline District Court. At the November Term, 1879, of the district court, Waitr as defendant, recovered a judgment against The White Sewing Machine Co., as plaintiff, which brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion. The district court erred in not reversing the order and judgment of the probate judge. (14 Kas. 92.) Proof of the issuing and the return of the execution unsatisfied, in whole or in part, was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff in error to said order and examination. (11 Ohio St. 323; 2 N. Y. 91; 9 Abb. 180; 34 Wis. 483; 9 Barb. 378; 67 N. C. 156; cases…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
On the 2d day of September, 1879, the plaintiff in error presented its motion and affidavit to the probate judge of Saline county for an order requiring the defendant in error and one Henry Bailey to appear and answer concerning his property as provided for in § 482 of the code. On the same day, the probate judge issued the following order:
(Court,' and Title.) “And now, on this 2d day of September, A. D. 1879, came the plaintiff above named, and thereupon plaintiff’s motion for an order to require the said defendants above named to appear…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Territory v. Chong Chak LaiHawaii Supreme Court · 1909
- Honce v. SchramSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CherrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1940