Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Harrison

Supreme Court of Kansas

Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Harrison

29 Kan. 147

DecidedJanuary 15, 1883

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Kan. 147 (Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Harrison) 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

Meyer, Bannerman & Co. v. Harrison, 29 Kan. 147 (kan 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

The same questions are involved in this case as in the case of S. M. Kelsey, W. C. Roberson, and John Bayha, partners as Kelsey, Roberson & Co., v. Thomas Harrison, just decided; and the decision in that case will control in this. We might, however, state in this case, as it was not specifically stated in that, that the chattel mortgage executed by Thomas Harrison to 'Edgar Hull was executed’ to secure the sum of $535.50, while the property mortgaged was of the value of about $3,500. It would- seem that this amount of property would be more than sufficient to secure that amount of debt; .but still we do not think that this great difference between the value of the mortgaged property and the amount of the debt secured will invalidate the mortgage. While it may be some slight evidence of fraud, yet it of itself will not prove fraud where the other circumstances of the case would tend to show good faith.

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

Per Curiam

The same questions are involved in this case as in the case of S. M. Kelsey, W. C. Roberson, and John Bayha, partners as Kelsey, Roberson & Co., v. Thomas Harrison, just decided; and the decision in that case will control in this. We might, however, state in this case, as it was not specifically stated in that, that the chattel mortgage executed by Thomas Harrison to 'Edgar Hull was executed’ to secure the sum of $535.50, while the property mortgaged was of the value of about $3,500. It would- seem that this amount of property would be more than sufficient to secure that amount of debt; .but still we do not think that this great difference between the value of the mortgaged property and the amount of the debt secured will invalidate the mortgage. While it may be some slight evidence of fraud, yet it of itself will not prove fraud where the other circumstances of the case would tend to show good faith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Kan. 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyer-bannerman-co-v-harrison-kan-1883.