Quinlan, Montgomery & Co. v. Danford
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Sumner District Court. Action by Quinlan, Montgomery & Co. against The Merchants’ and Drovers’ Bank of Caldwell, Kansas, and J. S. Danford, to recover $2,895.62. The petition was filed in the district court.of Sumner county, November 26, 1881, on a certain sight draft drawn by the bank in favor of and payable to the order of Quinlan, Montgomery & Co., which draft, upon presentment, was refused payment.
Read the full summary
Error from Sumner District Court. Action by Quinlan, Montgomery & Co. against The Merchants’ and Drovers’ Bank of Caldwell, Kansas, and J. S. Danford, to recover $2,895.62. The petition was filed in the district court.of Sumner county, November 26, 1881, on a certain sight draft drawn by the bank in favor of and payable to the order of Quinlan, Montgomery & Co., which draft, upon presentment, was refused payment. The petition further alleged that J. S. Danford was and is president of the bank and one of the principal stockholders thereof, and has had and now has control of the business and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Horton, C. J.:
In this case the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action against the defendant Danford. The Merchants’ and Drovers’ bank is the defendant which is primarily liable, and the first step is a judgment against the bank. Whatever proceedings may be proper after the judgment to enforce its collection, it is clear under the allegations of the petition that Danford is not primarily liable. The statute requires that the affidavit for attachment must contain a statement showing the nature of the plaintiff’s claim.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Greenawalt v. EsteSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Bailey v. NortonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1955
- Stewart v. WinnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
- National Solar Salt Works v. WemyssSupreme Court of Kansas · 1888
- Guest v. RamseySupreme Court of Kansas · 1893