Standard Implement Co. v. Parlin & Orendorff Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Barber District Court. On the 15th day of April, 1889, the Parlin & Orendorff Company brought an action in replevin against the Standard Implement Company, L. M. Spencer, A. N. Spencer, and J. N. Eastwood, to recover possession of certain personal property, valued at $2,205.05. The property was recovered under the writ and delivered to that company. Issue was joined between the plaintiff and the defendant the Standard Implement Company.
Read the full summary
Error from Barber District Court. On the 15th day of April, 1889, the Parlin & Orendorff Company brought an action in replevin against the Standard Implement Company, L. M. Spencer, A. N. Spencer, and J. N. Eastwood, to recover possession of certain personal property, valued at $2,205.05. The property was recovered under the writ and delivered to that company. Issue was joined between the plaintiff and the defendant the Standard Implement Company. On the 17th day of April, 1889, the Parlin & Orendorff Company commenced another action in replevin against the same defendants, to recover…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
If the contracts under which L. M. Spencer received the goods in dispute from the Parlin & Orendorff Company were conditional sales only, or if, under the contracts, that company could reclaim the goods, then, in *546any event, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. The provision of the contracts referred to reads:
“All goods, and the proceeds of all sales of goods, received under this contract, whether the proceeds are in notes, cash, or book accounts, we agree to hold, as collateral security, in trust and for the benefit of, and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Harkness v. RussellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Ballard v. . BurgettNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Moors v. . KidderNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Van Duzor v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Sumner v. McFarlanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Big Four Implement Co. v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- Moline Plow Co. v. WithamSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893
- Hench v. EacockIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Dannenberg v. TeetersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Baker Ice Mach. Co. v. BaileyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.