TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Traders Bank v. First National Bank

The Traders Bank of Kirwin, Kansas v. The First National Bank of Kirwin, Kansas

Traders Bank v. First Nat'l Bank, 50 P. 1098 (Kan. Ct. App. 1897)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Kansas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 5, 1897
Docket
No. 132
Judges
Wells
Citations
50 P. 10986 Kan. App. 4001897 Kan. App. LEXIS 343
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Question oe Fact — whether store furnishings 'part of realty is. The question as to whether or not the counters, shelving, drawers, and a prescription case in a drug store, are a part of the real estate or remain personal property, is largely a question of fact'; and having been determined by the trial court upon the evidence, its findings thereon will not be disturbed by this court.
Summary
Error from Phillips District Court. Hon, G. Webb Bertram, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wells

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wells, J.

The question in this case is, Are certain articles of property described in the plaintiff’s petition and consisting of counters, shelving, drawers, and a prescription case, located in a certain building formerly used as a drug-store, in Kirwin, Kan., personal property, or a part of the real estate upon which they were placed and used? In cases of this kind, the intent of the party in placing the property in the building is a material question in determining whether it became a part of the realty or not. Shoemaker v. Simpson, 16 Kan. 43 ; Eaves v. Estes, 10 id. 314; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Morgan, 42 id. 23; Winslow v. Bromich, 54 id. 300. Intent, purpose or design is a question of fact. 19 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 657.

Whether the property in controversy in this case became a part of the realty or not, is largely a question of fact, upon which the court below was author *401 ized by the evidence to find as it did; and under the well-established practice of our Supreme Court, such finding will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1915: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. L. & M. Mercantile Co. v. Wimer146 P. 1162 (Kan. 1915)

Most recent

  1. L. & M. Mercantile Co. v. Wimer146 P. 1162 (Kan. 1915)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Shoemaker, Miller & Co. v. Simpson, 16 Kan. 43 (1876) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list