The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-01-12
WAS BUSY SESSION
Appellate Court Clears Docket
and Decides Motions.
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN
Including an Opinion of Much
interest to Bankers.
DECISIONS HANDED DOWN

Inc appellate court finished the docket
of yesterday in a hurry, and adjourned.
after handing down large number of i'm
portant decisions for the different divis-
ions. "A very important decision, showing
the danger of banking institutions, recon-
mending the credit of weak firm, is that
rendered by Judge Schoonover in the case
of J. l. Case Plow Co. against G. w.
Brown & Son of Augusta. Kansas. The
case was appealed from the district court
of Butler county by Brown & Son, defend
ants below, but Judge Schinn's ruling is
offered in a very concise opinion on the
case.
The original action was brought by the
]. I. Case Plow company to recover the
value of certain agricultural implements,
which they alleged had been unlawfully
converted by Brown & Son TO their own
use and benefit. The ]. 1. Case Plow Co.
allege in substance that they had sold
certain implements to Smith & Weidlein
of Augusta, and that by the terms of the
contract the goods weresto remain in pos
session of the plaintiff until paid for.
%
the implements to their own use to the
plaintiffs damage in the. sum of S92S.16.
For a second cause Of action the J. 1.
Case Plow company alleged that Smith
& Weidlein were engaged in the hardware
business and had represented to the COM
pany's agent that they owned property
over and above their Indebtedness and ex-
empuons to the amount of $4,000 and gave
a list Of the different property that they
were the owners Of, which statements
and representations were false, and gave
the defendants. Brown & Son as refer
ences, and that each of the defendants
made statements to J. I. Case company's
agents concerning the financial condition
of Smith & Weidlein that were false.
On the representations both orally made
and written by Brown & Son, the plow
company alleges that they sold Smith &
Wedlein the goods in controversy; that
afterwards Brown & Son took possession
of said goods under a claim of purchase
but that said transfer was without consid-
Grafton and void and made in fraud of
plaintiffs right
Brown & Son claim that they were not
aware of certain liabilities of Smith &
Weidlein when they wrote tO'the plaintiffs
concerning their credit
In his opinion handed down yesterday
Judge Schoonover closes as follows: "Evi-
dence was introduced which tended to
establish the allegations of the petition
that the goods were sold on the false
representations of both Smith & Weidlein
and Brown & Son, and that the plaintiff
relied on such statements in extending
credit to Smith & Weidlein. Brown &
Son defendants. admitted that one of the
statements made in the letter to ]. I.
Case Co was untrue, that at the time
Of this letter they knew Smith & Wedlein
Were heavily in debt. The fact that the
Browns suppressed material facts of
which they had knowledge in regard to
the retail firms financial condition. to-
gether with the fact that they afterwards
took possession of the goods, certainly
tendeJ to show that the Browns had
knowledge that the goods were obtained
fraudulentIy and that they participated
in such fraud We do not think the court
committed error in permitting the evil
dence complained of to go to the jury,
and the judgment of the district court is
affirmed"
OTHER DECISIONS.
The court handed down the following
other decisions yesterday
CENTRAL DIVISION
State of Kansas VS.. Chas. Debruler ap-
pollant error from Harvey county; af-
firmed
State of Kansas vs. VIM. OMara, error
from Lyon county; affirmed.
Aldace F. Walker and John ]. Cook.
receivers of the Santa Fe Ry. Co, VS.. D.
A Culman, error from Cowley county;
reversed
J. F. Stout VS.. A. ]. Lusk ct al, error
from Reno county; affirmed.
State VS. Henry Arnstein. error from
Butler county; reversed.
A. T. & S. F. Ry: Co. VS.. John A. Eaton
and Thomas J. Eaton. error from Cowley
county; affirmed.
WESTERN DIVISION.
Bridget Concannon VS.. Thomas Ruse,
error from Finney county; affirmed.
Henry Bearman and Mary E. Bearman
VS.. VIM Morrison, error from Finney
county; affirmed
H L. Ines VS.. c. W. Beeler, error from
Edwards county; affirmed
EASTERN DIVISION.
Frank Mutt and Huldah F. Mutt vs.
VIM. Gaddis error from Labette county;
affirmed.
Fort Scott Rapid Transit Railway Co. |
VS.. Susan Page, error from Bourbon
county; affirmed.
D. A. Croker vs.. l. c. Bell. error from
Linn county; modified.
The Long-Bell Lumber Co. vs. Angelina |
Woodward. error from Montgomery coun- |
ty; affirmed
State VS. B. F. AsbeIl, error from La
bette county: affirmed
Mo. Pac Ry CO. VS.. V G. Houston.
error from Anderson eO~uty; reversed.
The following cases on yesterdays regu- |
lar docket were disposed Of:
W II. Baker ct al Us. L. D. Skinner. ap-
pealed from Sedgwick county; submitted |
on briefs
Scott E. Whine ct al vs. Norman F. |
Thompson ct al appealed from Harvey |
county; dismissed for failure to file briefs. |
VIM. C. Bates vs.. R. p. Kelley ct al, |
appealed from Greenwood county; dis |
missed Cor failure 10 file briefs.
H. c. Jackson ct al vs.. J. C. McCray.
appealed from Lyon county; continued to |
May term.
NJ NJ Scott. constable. ct al vs.. VI. A. |
Brown. appealed from Cowley county; |
submitted on briefs
The First National Bank. Buchanan |
snNNAnNNnNHnNNNHANnNn sruNas