Taylor v. Lander

Supreme Court of Kansas

Taylor v. Lander

60 P. 320, 61 Kan. 588, 1900 Kan. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 10, 1900

DocketNo. 11,516

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 60 P. 320 (Taylor v. Lander) 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

Taylor v. Lander, 60 P. 320, 61 Kan. 588, 1900 Kan. LEXIS 90 (kan 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This suit was brought, so far as the record discloses, on July 29, 1895, being an action in the nature of a' creditor’s bill to enforce the lien of a judgment rendered June 5, 1893, against the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company, under which certain land was attached March 16, 1893. It was alleged in [592]*592the petition that, in 1890, the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company attempted to transfer its property, including the land in controversy, to the Kansas Savings Bank, and made a pretended transfer of the same, which was fraudulent. There was some evidence introduced by the plaintiff below in support of this allegation of the petition.

If the Kansas Savings Bank, whose assignee was defendant below, took title in 1890, this creditor’s suit to obtain relief on the ground of fraud, having been brought in 1895, was barred by the statute of limitations. It will be noticed that a formal deed was made by the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company to the Kansas Savings Bank March 22, 1893, six days after the land was attached by Taylor ; and judgment being rendered in the action, it was of course subject to the attachment and judgment lien. The land was ordered sold to satisfy the lien of the attachment, and the plaintiff below might have issued an execution, sold the property, and applied the proceeds to the payment of his judgment. This was an adequate remedy at law. He needed no aid from a court of equity to set aside a conveyance made after his attachment lien had been fixed upon the land, which attachment was sustained and the property ordered sold to satisfy the debt.

If the bank took title to the real estate in 1890 by succeeding to all the rights and assets of the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company, then the suit of plaintiff below was clearly barred by limitation, having been commenced in 1895, more than two years after he was in a position, as a judgment creditor, to maintain a creditor’s suit. If the bank took title by the deed of the 22d of March, 1893, after the land was attached by Taylor, then the latter, on obtaining judg[593]*593ment, had a right to sell the same on execution; and thus, haying an adequate remedy at law, he cannot maintain this equitable action. (Stanton v. Catron, 45 Pac. [N. M.] 884.)

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This suit was brought, so far as the record discloses, on July 29, 1895, being an action in the nature of a' creditor’s bill to enforce the lien of a judgment rendered June 5, 1893, against the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company, under which certain land was attached March 16, 1893. It was alleged in [592]*592the petition that, in 1890, the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company attempted to transfer its property, including the land in controversy, to the Kansas Savings Bank, and made a pretended transfer of the same, which was fraudulent. There was some evidence introduced by the plaintiff below in support of this allegation of the petition.

If the Kansas Savings Bank, whose assignee was defendant below, took title in 1890, this creditor’s suit to obtain relief on the ground of fraud, having been brought in 1895, was barred by the statute of limitations. It will be noticed that a formal deed was made by the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company to the Kansas Savings Bank March 22, 1893, six days after the land was attached by Taylor ; and judgment being rendered in the action, it was of course subject to the attachment and judgment lien. The land was ordered sold to satisfy the lien of the attachment, and the plaintiff below might have issued an execution, sold the property, and applied the proceeds to the payment of his judgment. This was an adequate remedy at law. He needed no aid from a court of equity to set aside a conveyance made after his attachment lien had been fixed upon the land, which attachment was sustained and the property ordered sold to satisfy the debt.

If the bank took title to the real estate in 1890 by succeeding to all the rights and assets of the Arkansas Valley Land & Loan Company, then the suit of plaintiff below was clearly barred by limitation, having been commenced in 1895, more than two years after he was in a position, as a judgment creditor, to maintain a creditor’s suit. If the bank took title by the deed of the 22d of March, 1893, after the land was attached by Taylor, then the latter, on obtaining judg[593]*593ment, had a right to sell the same on execution; and thus, haying an adequate remedy at law, he cannot maintain this equitable action. (Stanton v. Catron, 45 Pac. [N. M.] 884.)

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 P. 320, 61 Kan. 588, 1900 Kan. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-lander-kan-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack