Woodward v. Witascheck
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Miami District Court. Action to recover upon an undertaking given in an attachment proceeding. On April 25, 1884, Woodward, Faxon & Co. commenced an action against Charles Witascheck, before Wm. H. Maxwell, a justice of the peace of the city of Paola, in Miami county, to recover $275.71. An order of attachment was issued at the same time and levied upon a certain stock of drugs, formerly owned and controlled by Charles Witascheck.
Read the full summary
Error from Miami District Court. Action to recover upon an undertaking given in an attachment proceeding. On April 25, 1884, Woodward, Faxon & Co. commenced an action against Charles Witascheck, before Wm. H. Maxwell, a justice of the peace of the city of Paola, in Miami county, to recover $275.71. An order of attachment was issued at the same time and levied upon a certain stock of drugs, formerly owned and controlled by Charles Witascheck. These goods had been transferred by Charles Witascheck to one Emil Ciboula, who sold them to Ferdinand Goebel, and who in turn transferred the stock to…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnston, J.:
The undertaking upon which a recovery is sought was not given by the defendant debtor, nor in his behalf. He did not own the property attached, had no interest in the attachment proceedings, and permitted judgment to be taken against him by default. Albert Witascheck interpleaded in the action, and claimed to be the owner of the goods which had been seized; and on this issue he obtained judgment in his' favor. This judgment and the one taken by default *763against Charles Witascheck had both been rendered a considerable time before the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Washer v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Sloan v. YoungMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Toelle v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1924