The Advocate and news., 1899-02-22
published February %, 1897
Supreme Court SyIIabi.

The State of Kansas
Geo. c. Otis.
Error from Russell County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston, ].
Chapter 1877 Of the laws Of 1897, purportlng
to require railroad companies TO furnish
free transportation to shippers Of live stock
in certain cases, and providing remedies
and penalties for violations of its proVis-
ions, has no application to nor effect upon
interstate shipments.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy
Attest: JNO. MARTIN,
[Seall Clerk Supreme Court.
1904
Hattie r. Douglas,
VS..
James II. Lowell ct al.
Error from Jackson County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Johnston, j.
1. A tax deed which recites that at a tax
sale certain lands were bid in by the county,
and that subsequently the certificates and
interest Of the county in the land were as
signed for certain specified sums, which
were less than the cost OF redemption and
less than the officers were authorized to ac-
cept, is void upon its face, and passes no
title to the holder.
2. The provision of the code which made
a sheriff's deed prima faclc evidence of the
regularity of the sale, and the proceedings
therein was repealed by chapter lO9 OF the
laws Of 1898, which provides for the sale
and redemption of real estate.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: JNO. MARTIN,
[Seal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
11OS6
Peter Milich,
The Armour Packing Company.
Error from Wyandotte County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston, j.
l. AS a general rule all prior oral nego-
.tiations are deemed to be merged in a
written agreement, and the terms Of such
agreement cannot be contTadicted, altered,
added to or varied by parol proof
2. An exception to the rule is a uniateral
admission such as an ordinary receipt, or
the mere acknowledgment of the receipt Of
purchase money in a conveyance, which
ordinarily is not conclusive upon the par
ties as to the consideration stated; but
when 1t appears from the writing that the
statement of consideration Is cOntractual
and not merely matter of recital, 1t is not
open to contradiction by oral proof.
g. The plaintiff, whose father died from
injuries alleged to have been caused by the
negligence Of the defendant, entered into a
written agreement of release, which stated
the claim of the plaintiff as next Of kin on
the claim of the plaintiff as next Of kin on
account Of the injuries and death OF his
father, the claimed liability Of the defen-
dant, that both parties desired to settle the
claim and all liability arising because OF
the injury and death, that the defendant
had paid and the plaintiff accepted $500 In
full satisfaction Of all claims Of any kind
by plaintiff arising out of or in any way
connected with the death Of his father and
plaintiff further agreed to make diligent
efIort to obtain the release of his mother,
II allVe, for the sum of $500 to be paid by
the. defendant, and II 1t was found that
she was dead, and that there were no 6ther
next Of kin and that the plaintiff was the
sole representative of his mother the $500
were to be paid to plaintiff. Both parties
signed the agreement. Held that the writ
ing is contractual in character and binding
upon the parties as to the consideration for
the release of liability, and that parol proof
that an additional consideration for the
release was an oral agreement by defen-
dant to give plaintiff permanent employ
ment at stated wages could not be received.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: JNO. MARTIN,
LSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.