The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-06-08
Can Hold No Property in Kansas
Contrary to Law.
DOES NOT CONFISCATE.
Only Enough Will Be Taken tt
Pay Costs.
Justice Burch Tells Why Re.
ceivers We're Appointed.

ment of custer against the Anheuser.
| Busch Brewing association today, ano
holds that the appointment of receiv-
ers was legal and proper in order tc
| protect, preserve and render effectua
the courts Jurisdiction. The opinion
was written by Justice R. A. Burch
| and was unanimous.
The judgment in the case follows:
| Upon the merits of the case the
! court finds for the plaintiff, and judg-
ment Is rendered for the custer of the
defendant and for costs.
| THE defendant is presumably GUST
| ed and enJolned from owning, holding,
or using property either real or per-
sonal in this state contrary to law, but
the restraining order is otherwise
vacated.
1.-The receivers are continued in Of
! flee and in possession of Office to exc
/ cute the judgment.
Saloon fixtures, equipments and
paraphernalia, and other personal
| property employed in and about the
unlawful sale or keeping for sale of
/ intoxicating liquors or in keeping
| drunk contrary to law, shall, as soon
as practicable, be removed from the
state. Personal property whose ordi-
nary use is lawful may be sold or re-
moved from the state at the defend
ants option, expressed to the receiver.
The receivers may permit removals
and sales of personal property to be
made by the defendant, but only under
their supervision and when satisfied of
the good faith of the transaction.
"All real estate belonging to the de-
PENDANT shall be sold. The defendant
is allowed a reasonable time in which
to make sales and upon application
to the court, accompanied by proof of
an actual sale, in good faith, any par
eel of real estate will be discharged
from the custody of the receiver. If
Of HI TO
pose of it without undue sacrifice. any
real estate remains unsold. the receiv-
ers shall sell it as upon execution. and
pay the proceeds after deducting ex-
penSes, to the defendant.
THE receivers shall reserve and sell
upon execution sufficient property to
pay the costs and accruing costs I'M
less the same are voluntarily paid by
the defendant.
1.-The receivers shall report their
conduct to the court. Applications for
allowances and expenses shall be de-
termined upon notice to the defen-
dant."
Doesn't COnfiscate Property.
The decision of the court Gusts the
companies from doing business in
Kansas but does not confscate the
property except enough to pay the,
costs of the proceedings. The court
holds that it had the right to appoint
receivers at the beginning of the pro-
ceeding. These receivers are to take
charge of all the property of the COM
pany hold it until the final determin-
alton, when they will supervise its
sale, or sell it for the company.
This was a test case, and this judg-
ment will apply to all the brewing
companies against which proceedings
have been commenced
Judge Burch in his opinion tells
why the receivers were appointed. He
says; Receivers for the defendants
property were not appointed for the
ultimate purpose of confiscatfon or
other appropria ton, except to such an
extent as might be necessary to pre-
vent the defendant from rendering in
effectual judgment for costs. There
is not law of the state transferring to
itself the title to property of a corpor-
alton which has unlawfully usurped
the franchise. and without such a law,
the court can not enter a Judgment of
forfeiture
The court was not satisfied at the be-
ginning of the case that the supposed
transfers of property made by the
brewing company was in good faith
The opinion says:
AT the hearing evidence was intro
ducsd on the part of the state which
left the court in some doubt respect
ing the good faith of the conduct of
the defendant in this case after the
service of the restraining order The
court was not satisfied that property
to the defendant was not still
being the instrument for the exercise
of corporate franchises, contrary to
law, and it was not certain that pro-
perty belonging to the defendant, was
not being placed colorably in the own
ership and possession of others so that
after a judgment of custer, if such
should be the result of the action, it
would continue to accomplish an un-
lawful usurpation of corporate privi-
leges.''
The Western Wooden mill of To-
peka won its case against the Liver
pool, London & Globe in the hard
fought fight growing out of the al
legged spontaneous combustion of
wool during the flood of 1903. The |
wool was submerged in water for sew
eral days, and when the water sub
sided, the wool gave every appearance |
of having been burned by fire. The
Liverpool. London & Globe, together
with other insurance companies re-
sisted payment, on the ground that |
there was really no fire, and that the |
wool was destroyed by decomposition,
The Shawnee county court held that |
there was evidence. sufficient to show /
ton, and that the wool was destroyed |
by fire.
Justices Smith and Porter dissentedi
from this opinion. holding that the |
wool was not destroyed by fire.
Cases which have been taken to the |
federal courts involving this same |
controversy, We're decided exactly. the |
opposite way.
Bixgar Wins $3.50, 900 Lawsuit.
The kansas Jarndyce CASE was de- |
cided today by the supreme court. This |
is the case of John Calwell VS.. L. A. |
Biggar, and the fight has been going on |
for about 20 years. The prize involved |
Is quarter of a million dollars worth ]
of properly in the city of Hutchinson. |
The supreme court sustained the de- |