The Advocate and news., 1899-03-01
Appellate Court SyIIabi.

d. Thomas defendant In error
Error from Lyon District Court
AFFIRMED.
The opinion Of the court was delivered by
Milton, j.
l. Certain facts held to indicate the pres
erVaton OF all the instructions given by the
trial court, In the absence of a statement In
the record to that effect.
Mere want OF fullness in definition or
otherwise In Instructions given, Is not
ground Of error where the complaining
party failed to ask for other or dinerent
instructions
3. All the instructions given in a case
must be considered where the giving Of one
of such instructions Is complained OF as
erroneous.
a. In an action for the recovery OF money
the answer was q general denial OF the al
legations OF the petition. The court IN one
instruction stated that each OF three propo-
sltions-set forth In the petition ana men.
toned In such instruct0n-must be FOUND
In favor OF the plaintiff to entitle him to
recover, and In the next succeeding IN
structlOn stated thatlfthe jury found against
the plaintiff as to each Of said PROPOSE
tions they should return verdict for the
defendant; held, that the two instructions
when read together in the light OF the facts
since under the pleadlngs the substantial
Issue In the case was as to plalntin's right
Of recovery.
Opinion filed February II, 1899.
Attest: '''' w. A. AYREs,
[SeaLl CLERK.
In the Kansas Court of Appeals Southern
Department, Central Division.
Al No 6SS.
Missouri Pacific Railway Company, plain
tin In error,
~ VS..
L. A. Townsend, defendant in error.
Error from Sedgwick County District Court
a DISMISSED.
The opinion OF the court was delivered by
Schoonover, ].
/. The certificate Of the Judge OF the dis
trlct court trying the case, required by Sec
ton 542a Of the code where the amount In
vOlved Is less than one hundred dollars,
should be made and Incorporated In the
record at the time Of, or prior to- the set
tllng OF the case-made.
O. This court cannot permit a case-made
to be amended more than one year after the
rendition OF the Judgment complained OF,
by incorporating therein certificate OF the
district Judge trying the case, that The
case is one belonging to the excepted
classes"
Opinion filed February II, 1890.
Attest; '''' W. A. AYREs.
[Seall Clerk.
y Department, Central Division
No. $685.
Calvin Hood, plaintiff in error,
VS..
o. s. Gibson and S. r. Hanlen, defendants
In error.
Error from Cowley County District Court.
REVERSED.
The opinion OF the court was delivered by
Schoonover, ].
l. "The general rule undoubtedly Is that
the declarations OF o vendor OK property,
made after the sale, are not admissible Tor
the purpose of invalidating II; yet where
ulent, and the intent OF the vendor Is a
material subject Of inquiry, great latitude
10 allowed In showing the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the transaction. In
such case II is proper to show the acts
and declarations OF the vendor, at the time
OF and Immediately after the sale, for the
purpose OF establishing the intent with
which 1t was made on his part" (Haskett
v. Auhl. Kans. App, 74i)
2. where one party sells goods with In
tent to defraud his creditors, but the other
party purchases them in good faith, and
without notice OF such fraudulent intent,
the purchaser obtains a good title to the
goods" Diefendorf v. oliver, Kan. S65.)
3. IA landlord may sell and convey to an
other all his rental interest In the crops
grown and growing on land leased by him
TO tenant prior to q division or separation
OF his portion OF the crops from the tenants;
and such sale, If made In good faith and for
a valuable consideration, and with an In
tantiun OF a present vesting OF title, will be