The Topeka state journal., 1897-07-10
MULyANE-O'BRIEN SUIT.
Supreme Court Decides Mrs OBrien
is Entitled to Damages.

IS Entitled TO damages
Chief Justice Doster rendered an
opinion today in the supreme court in
the case of Joab Mulvane. plaintiff in
error, versus Mary Ann O'Brien, ad-
miniStrator of the estate of DR.. NJ.
O'Brien, deceased
The action was brought in the district
court of Shawnee county by Michael
O'Brien against Mr.. Mulvane, to recov-
er damages in connection with the sales
of shares of stock in the Topeka Water
company, owned by O'Brien.
The lower court decided that the
plaintiff was entitled to recover from
Mr.. Mulvane the sum of 1857 and rem
dered judgment accordingly. The plain
tiff having died the action was reviv-
ed by the administrator. The case then
was appealed to the supreme court with
the result stated.
Justice Doster in his opinion said:
THE court holds that where the stock
holders being ignorant of the selling
value of their stock authorize the pres
ident of the company to find a pur-
chaser and effect a sale of their shares
of stock at par, and such president at
and before such time was in secret cor
reSpOndence and negotiation for the
sale of the stock with a view to a large
profit to himself, and by affirmative
acts and Representations cOncealS
his transactions from the stockholders,
and effected a sale of their stock for
sum largely in excess of par he cannot
retain such excess but must account
to the stockholders for the profits made
Notwithstanding he had stated to them
that he would retain for his services as
agent any sum realized above that for
which he was authorized to sell.
THE plaintiff in error not only with
held information of offers but by af-
hrmatfve misrepresentation concealed
all knowledge of the same. He said that
the visit of the first person who came
to inspect the company's property, pos
SesSed no Importance to the stockhold-
ers, when he knew that it was with
q n ra17 70 he e4C Il
He said that he was having the cor
porate property examined by an ex-
pert with a view to promoting the cor
pOrate interests when as a fact we'll
known to him such expert made his ex-
animation as a representative of pros
pective buyers with whom a deal was
presently closed
TT is no answer to say that plain
tiff in error during the correspondence
which led up to the contract of agency
stated to defendant in error that he
would retain for his services any sum
above par, realized upon the sale of the
stock, and that defendant in error as
sented to the same by not objecting
thereto. By most diSingenuous prac-
tices, plaintiff in error had concealed
the fact that a large profit could be re-
allied on a sale of the stock, but he
legal consequences of his deception by
a mere show of candor and honest deal
ing
The following opinions were rendered
by the supreme court today:
CHIEF JUSTICE DOSTER.
Geo. NJ Noble VS.. Carrie Teeple ct
al; error from Neosho county; affirm
]. B. Farweu VS.. R. R. Laird; error
from Sedgwick county; reversed
J. F. COttrell ct al VS.. o. ManIove ct
al; error from Miami county; reversed.
The Solomon Solar Salt company VS..
M w. Barber; error from Saline coun-
ty; reversed.
Linton ]. Usher vs. Simon J. Hollis
firmed.
Joab Mulvane VS.. Mary Anne O'Brien,
administrative, etc; error from Shaw
nee county: affirmed.
J. S. Peak VS.. the Lenora State bank;
error from the court of appeals; re-
versed.
State VS.. Bull Geary; appeal from
Wyandotte county; affirmed.
JUSTICE JOHNSTON
]. c. Sturtevant VS.. Louis Sarbach,
assignee, etc; error from Jackson coun-
ty: affirmed.
The Security Investment company ct
al. VS.. the Richmond National bank ct
al; error from Mitchell county; re-
versed-
William Erst ct al. VS.. James NJ Fos-
ter ct al; error from Lyon county; re-
versed.
James NJ. Foster ct al vs. C. A. Gus
Ter ct al; error from Jackson county;
affirmed.
Bayha, Barber & List VS.. Morrison
Munford ct al; error from Shawnee
Thomas H. Davis, administrator, etc,
vs. VIM. Clark ct al; error from Saline
county; affirmed.
Theodore Martin, executor, ETC., VS..
the Missouri Pacific Railway company;
error from Cloud county: affirmed.
State of Kansas VS.. Commissioners of
Scott county; error from Scott county;
reversed
The Missouri Pacific Railway COM
pany VS. the estate of Lucy Bennett,
deceased, ct al; appeal from the court
of appeals, northern department; af-
frmed-
A, T. & s. F. Railroad company vs.
John B. Cross ct al; error from Lyon
A, T. & S. F. Railroad company VS..
w. T. Matthews ct al; error from Cloud
county; affirmed.
Charles w. Mcdonald VS.. the Citizens
National bank of Concordia ct al; er-
ror from Cloud county; dismissed.
Charles H. York VS.. A. c. Barnes ct
al; error from Saline county, affirmed
w. T. Coale ct al. VS.. James r. Camp
bell; error from Lyon county; reversed
PER CURIAM.
Kingrnan & Co. VS.. Freeman King
man; error from Saline county; affirm
A, t. & S. F. Co VS.. southey B.
Tunnel; error from Ford county; af-
frmed.
Carey; error from Neosho county; af-
firnled.
James NJ. Campbell VS. William Nc
Laughhn, ct. al; error from Lyon coun-
ty; affirmed.
NJ. Lou Helm VS.. w. H. Boils; error
from Sumner county; reversed
Aderia1 H. Case, ct. al, VS.. Henry F.
Richards; error from Shawnee county;
dismissed.
The State of Kansas VS.. Rafe Clark;
error from Wyandotte county; affirm
ed.
John s Rossmen. ct. al, VS.. Newton
Tertr
ty; dismissed
URSULA Belle Acorn VS.. H. o. Aeon;
error from Montgomery county; dis
missed.
Anna E. A1drich, ct. al, VS.. The Ed
inburgh Lombard Investment Compa-
ny; error from Sedgwick county; dis