The Advocate and news., 1897-12-01

TSeei 49, S1IerL
Kansas Court of Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Central Division.
No. 24O.
Oscar A. Terry plaintiff in error
e. NJ. Anderson, defendant in error
Error from Saline County District Court.
REVERSED.
Syllabus
/. In an action in the District court by
appeal, wherein new Issues are rendered by
an amended bill of particulars made In re-
sponse to the defendants motion, the rule
OF the code that allegations of appointment
or authority not denied under oath are
taken as true applies.
g. 1t is error to sustain demurrer to the
evidence of the plaintiff in case where
the admissions by the pleadlngs and of
defendant upon the trial and evidence con-
sidered as o whole make O case prima
facie for the plaintiff.
All the Judges concurring.
A true copy
Attest w. H. GATES,
[Seal.l Clerk.
Kansas Court of Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Central Division.
No. 22S.
Preston Paris, plaintiff in error,
VS..
Andrew Nordburg and Anna Nordburg,
defendants in error
Error from Smith County District Court.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court McElroy, j.
l. A statute which authorizes the re-
dempti0n of real property sold under fore
closure of mortgage where no right of re-
demptlon previously existed, or which ex-
tends the period Of redemption beyond the
time formerly allowed, cannot constitu-
tionally apply to a sale under a mortgage
executed before its passage.
All the Judges concurring
A true copy.
Attest: w. Fl. GATES,
[Seall Clerk.
Kansas Court of Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Central Division.
No 219.
Joseph Rainey, plaintiff in error,
vs..
Amanda H. Yingst, defendant in error.
Per Curam.
This cause is before us upon motion to
revive In the name Of the administrator Of
the defendant In error, said defendant in
error having died April Sd, 1896, and her ad-
ministrator was appointed and qualified
April IL, 1896 This motion to revive was
filed May 18th, 1897, more than one year
after said action could have been revived,
and seven months after said action was
said plaintiff in error. 1t is contended by
plaintiff in error that this court has au-
thority to order said revivor under section
80 Of the Civil Code, and is not bound by
the limitations provided under article 10
Of the Code. The argument Is forcible and
citations are made from the decisions of
the Supreme court of Ohio and Nebraska,
apparently sustaining this contention, but
we do not feel called upon to pass upon
this question at this time, as the plaintiff
in error has not shown that degree of dill
gence that entities him to this extraordi-
nary, relief by court Of equity as he
within the period fixed by the statute.
The motion to revive Is overruled and
these proceedings in error dismissed at
the cost of the plaintiff In error.
All the Judges concurring.
A true copy.
Attest w. Fl. GATES,
[Seal1 Clerk.
Kansas Court of Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Central Division.
No. 191.
The United States Wind Engine & Pump
Co.. plaintiff in error,
Harrison Machine Works, defendant in
error.
Per Curiam.
This case was tried in the District court
of Mitchell county on January 18th, 1894,
and finding by the court in favor Of the
defendant. A motion for a new trial was
made and overruled the same day and
judgment rendered for the defendant.