Ross v. Richolson

Court of Appeals of Kansas

Ross v. Richolson

45 P. 97, 3 Kan. App. 239, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 84

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedMay 8, 1896

DocketNo. 42

StatusPublished

This text of 45 P. 97 (Ross v. Richolson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. Richolson, 45 P. 97, 3 Kan. App. 239, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 84 (kanctapp 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dennison, J.:

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of McDonald v. Richolson, ante, p. 235, except that while McDonald & Oo. had forcible possession of said goods they sold a portion of them to Ross. Ross brought this action to recover them ; judgment was rendered for Richolson, and Ross brings the case here for review. Ross having purchased the property from McDonald & Co. got only such title as McDonald & Co. had. McDonald & Co.’s, title having failed as againt Richolson, Ross’s title must also fail. The cáse of McDonald v. Richolson, ante, p. 235, is referred to and followed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

All the Judges concurring.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dennison, J.:

The facts in this case are identical with those in the case of McDonald v. Richolson, ante, p. 235, except that while McDonald & Oo. had forcible possession of said goods they sold a portion of them to Ross. Ross brought this action to recover them ; judgment was rendered for Richolson, and Ross brings the case here for review. Ross having purchased the property from McDonald & Co. got only such title as McDonald & Co. had. McDonald & Co.’s, title having failed as againt Richolson, Ross’s title must also fail. The cáse of McDonald v. Richolson, ante, p. 235, is referred to and followed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

All the Judges concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 P. 97, 3 Kan. App. 239, 1896 Kan. App. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-richolson-kanctapp-1896.