Case ID: kan_30/html/0105-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. D. Buford & Co. v. Baum & Baum.
    Action brought in the district court of Barton county, by B. D. Buford & Go., a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, against Moses Baum and another, partners as Baum & Baum, to recover the possession of a certain stock of hardware and agricultural implements, or in default of such recovery, to obtain a judgment against defendants for $1,913.20, with interest and costs. The plaintiff based its action upon a certain chattel mortgage, a copy of which is as follows, to wit:
    
      “Know all men by these presents, That we, Baum & Baum, a copartnership composed of Moses Baum, of Hebron, Nebraska, and Moses Baum, of Great Bend, Kansas, are indebted to B. D. Buford & Co., of Rock Island, Illinois, for goods sold and delivered by said B. D. Buford & Co. to Baum & Baum in the sum of $1,913.21, to be paid by said Baum & Baum to said Buford & Co. on the first day of November, 1879, and if not paid on that date, to bear ten per cent, interest thereafter. Now to secure the payment of said money above mentioned, at the time mentioned, the said Baum & Baum hereby sell, transfer and convey to the said B. D. Buford & Co. the following personal property, to wit:
    [Here follows a description of the property mortgaged.]
    Now this sale is intended to be a mortgage, and to be void if said debt is paid on the first day of November, 1879; but if the debt be not then paid, to be in full force and effect in law. The mortgagors to continue in possession of the mortgaged property until the mortgage becomes due, or until the mortgagees deem themselves insecure.
    Signed this 2d day of July, 1879. Baum & Baum.”
    The defendants answered, first, by a general denial; and second, that—
    “.The chattel mortgage upon which suit has been brought, was obtained by fraud of the plaintiffs, and is wholly null and void; that by reason of the fraudulent representations of the plaintiffs, by and through their agents, the defendants have been damaged in the full sum of two thousand dollars to their said business in Great Bend. Wherefore, defendants demand judgment against the plaintiffs in the sum of two thousand dollars and costs of suit.”
    The plaintiff replied by a general denial of each and every material allegation of the answer. Trial at the March Term, 1882, of the district court, when the jury returned a verdict as follows:
    “We, the jury, impaneled and sworn in the above-entitled case, do upon our oaths find for the defendants, and assess their damages at $1,867, after deducting the amount of plaintiff’s mortgage.”
    New trial denied, and judgment accordingly for the defendants. The plaintiff corporation brings the case to this court.
    
      Rossington, Johnston & Smith, and Maher & Osmond, for plaintiff in error.
   Per Curiam:

The judgment in this case is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, on the authority of Werner v. Bergman, 28 Kas. 60. Other errors are apparent in the record, but the correction of the fundamental error above referred to will doubtless avoid a recurrence of such errors, and therefore any special notice of them is unnecessary.