Jewell v. Simpson

Supreme Court of Kansas

Jewell v. Simpson

38 Kan. 368

DecidedJanuary 15, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 38 Kan. 368 (Jewell v. Simpson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jewell v. Simpson, 38 Kan. 368 (kan 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Counsel for plaintiffs in error have forcibly presented a motion for rehearing in this case. We reiterate what was stated in our former opinion, and are satisfied that the law is correctly declared therein. But, further, in this action the chattel mortgage under which plaintiffs in error claim possession cannot be reformed, as George and Harry Davis are not parties in the court below. We cannot say that “Davis & Sons” are bound by a chattel mortgage which they did not sign, even if executed by mistake, unless they are parties to the record, with opportunity to contest.

Johnston, J., having been of counsel, took no part in the decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Counsel for plaintiffs in error have forcibly presented a motion for rehearing in this case. We reiterate what was stated in our former opinion, and are satisfied that the law is correctly declared therein. But, further, in this action the chattel mortgage under which plaintiffs in error claim possession cannot be reformed, as George and Harry Davis are not parties in the court below. We cannot say that “Davis & Sons” are bound by a chattel mortgage which they did not sign, even if executed by mistake, unless they are parties to the record, with opportunity to contest.

Johnston, J., having been of counsel, took no part in the decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Kan. 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jewell-v-simpson-kan-1888.