The Advocate and news., 1898-01-05
Published January s, 1891
Appellate Court SyIIabi.
Knnsao Court Of Appeals, Southern De-
partment, Eastern Division.

The Milwaukee Mechanics Insurance Com
pany, plaintiff In error,
VB.
M. A. Winfield, defendant in error.
Error from Neosho County District Court.
REVERSED.
syllabus BY the Court. Dennlson, p. ].
!. Where the plaintiff alleges In his pc
eltion that he has performed all the condi-
lions precedent on his part, such allegation
is sufhcient under section 122 OF the Civil
Code to tender the Issue to the defendant
Q. II the allegation that an insurance
company has denied all liability and re-
fused TO pay the whole or any part Of q
loss, Is true, the insured ig relieved from
the necessity Of making proofs Of loss, and
the company valves the right to Insist
upon such proof or to claim the sixty days
for payment
3. When the insured gives notice Of his
loss to the local agent Of the company,
and the special agent comes to investigate
the loss, and the inventory Of the insured
is submitted to such special agent and he
declines to receive the same, for the rea-
son that schedule ls attached thereto
containing property for which he claims
the company is not liable the assured must
be held to have given sufficient notice, and
to nave furnished sufficient inventory.
4. An insurance company, by denying its
liability for q portion of the articles con-
does 1T not thereby Waivs It's right G To- de-
mand proofs of loss and inspection Of docu-
ments or certified copies thereof, II their
right to these things is stipulated In the
policy.
All the Judges cOncurrlng.
A true copy.
Attest; w. o. cHAMPD,
BY Il. L. Eaton, Deputy.
Kansas Court of Appeals Southern De-
partment, Eastern Division.
No. 1884,
Liverpool and London and Globe Insur-
ance Company, plaintih in error
M. A. Winfield, defendant in error
Error from Neosho District Court
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Dennlson, p. J.
The decision in the Milwaukee Mechanics
Insurance Company VS. Winfield is decisive
OF the question raised In this case
All tho Judges concurring.
Attest: w. o. cHAMPE,
LSeal] Clerk.
BY p. L. Eaton, Deputy.
Kansas Court Of Appeals, Southern De-
partment, Eastern Division.
No. 176
The Chanute National Bank, plaintiff in
error,
VS..
II, I. Crowell, r. J. Nooner and A. P. Glib
son, defendants In error.
Error from Allen District Court.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Dennison, p. ].
/. Where a bank agrees with the men,
bers OK q partnership, engaged In buying
and shipping stock, that 1t will pay the
checks given by any member of said firm,
for stock bought by them for said partner
ship, and receive the proceeds arising from
the sale OF such stock to reimburse them
therefor, said bank cannot refuse to pay
ouch checks, and apply the proceeds aris-
ing from the sale Of such stock TO the in
divldual debt of one member of said part
nership.
e. II said bank refuses to nav such
checks, the check holders can maintain an
action upon the contract made between the
hank and the members Of the partnership
IOr JDe DenenL OF Sucn cneCk holders, and
can compel the bank TO apply the funds to
the payment Of their checks.
All the Judges concurring.
A true copy,
Attest: w. o. CHAMPE
TSeaLl Clerk.
BY z. L. Eaton, Deputy.
Kansas Court Of Appeals. Southern De-
partment, Eastern Division.
No. 2l4.
The Kansas & Colorado Pacific Railway
Company, plaintiff in error,