Mason v. Anthony

Supreme Court of Kansas

Mason v. Anthony

76 P. 1130, 69 Kan. 847, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 347

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedApril 9, 1904

DocketNo. 13,566

StatusPublished

This text of 76 P. 1130 (Mason v. Anthony) 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

Mason v. Anthony, 76 P. 1130, 69 Kan. 847, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 347 (kan 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Ouriam:

This was an action brought by D. R. Anthony against D. B. Mason in the district court of Leavenworth county for the conversion of one Jersey cow, five steers, and eight yearling calves. The answer was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $330, and defendant brings error.

Defendant purchased the stock in controversy from D. B. Hall, a tenant of plaintiff. The issues between plaintiff and defendant upon the trial were whether plaintiff or [848]*848Hall was the owner of the stock when purchased; and if plaintiff, and not Hall was the owner, whether Hall, under his arrangements with ' plaintiff, had the right to' sell the property to defendant. These issues were tried before the jury on conflicting evidence. They were questions of fact to be determined by the jury. There is some complaint made of the instructions refused and the instruction given by the court, but we find no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Ouriam:

This was an action brought by D. R. Anthony against D. B. Mason in the district court of Leavenworth county for the conversion of one Jersey cow, five steers, and eight yearling calves. The answer was a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $330, and defendant brings error.

Defendant purchased the stock in controversy from D. B. Hall, a tenant of plaintiff. The issues between plaintiff and defendant upon the trial were whether plaintiff or [848]*848Hall was the owner of the stock when purchased; and if plaintiff, and not Hall was the owner, whether Hall, under his arrangements with ' plaintiff, had the right to' sell the property to defendant. These issues were tried before the jury on conflicting evidence. They were questions of fact to be determined by the jury. There is some complaint made of the instructions refused and the instruction given by the court, but we find no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 P. 1130, 69 Kan. 847, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-anthony-kan-1904.