Mielke v. Hans

233 P. 5, 133 Wash. 59, 1925 Wash. LEXIS 823
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 17, 1925
DocketNo. 18769. Department One.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 P. 5 (Mielke v. Hans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mielke v. Hans, 233 P. 5, 133 Wash. 59, 1925 Wash. LEXIS 823 (Wash. 1925).

Opinion

Bridges, J.

This suit is about four farm horses. The respondents sued one C. A. Mielke, and at the same time attached the horses as the property of the defendant in that case. The appellant here claimed to be the owner of the horses and replevied them, and the question involved is as to who owned the horses at the time of the attachment.

The whole matter rests on a question of fact. There is a clear; clean conflict in the testimony. Some of it is to the effect that C. A. Mielke, the defendant in the original case and a brother of the appellant, was the owner. There is also testimony to the effect that one Thorp originally owned the horses and sold them to C. A. Mielke, and that the latter re-sold them to Thorp *60 and that he sold them to the appellant. There is also testimony to the effect that, when Thorp pretended to sell the horses to' the appellant, he was not the owner of them, and if he had any interest in them at all it was in the nature of possession as security for a debt. There is also testimony to the effect that, at the time of the attachment, and long prior and subsequent thereto, the horses were in the possession of C. A. Mielke, and that, if they had been sold, the bill of sale had not been recorded.

It would not serve any useful purpose to give further details concerning the testimony. The lower court found that C. A. Mielke was the owner and in possession of the horses at the time of the attachment. It also found that, if Thorp had any interest in them at the time he pretended to sell them to the appellant, such interest was in the nature of security and that he was not the owner. We cannot say that the evidence preponderates against the court’s findings.

For the reasons given, the judgment is affirmed.

Tolman, C. J., Main, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Nilsen
27 P.2d 128 (Washington Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 P. 5, 133 Wash. 59, 1925 Wash. LEXIS 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mielke-v-hans-wash-1925.