The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-01-14
= g $50 No. 1885. so5
The Beiknap Hardware Company


--.
- - s-'ss.f No 1885 .o5 a'
l The Beiknap Hardware Company
Henry E. S1eeth. ct al
h Error from Greenwood County
REVERSED.
Syllabus By the Court benson IsI e;1,a =
ings of the district court based entirely
upon written and DOCUMENTARY evidence,
when the case is presentea mere TN IN p 4rie1
court. e
{ q. Where the deposition of non-resi-
adverse party. the refusal OF such witness
to testify to material matters appearing
to be within his knowisage. where no suf-
the deniallof a. substantial right. and war
rants the Inference that the matter or m
formation so wfthhe.A would, if divulged,
have been unfavorable to such. witness
and of benefit to the party seeking it,,
3. Usually, fraud. if it exists, is disclos-
tails of the transaction. and the surround
ing circumstances, and the presumption
arising from the refusal of a party. when
ial details of a transaction under investi-
cation within his knowledge, should be
added to the facts and circumstances pro-
ven. in determining the good faith of such
All the justices -concurring.
Attest. 80. D.A. VALENTINE,
[Seal] ~ Clerk Supreme Court.
3 No. 1891 ~ IN
G. F. Chayes, for Himself and Others
Having a Common and Similar Interest,
go 3 vs.ii9 - r'.
The City of Atchlson and the Mayor and
Councilmen of said City
Error from Atchson County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Johnston, c. J.
l. The validity of proceedings taken by
city officers under STATUTORY authority .ex-
tending the corporate boundaries of a city
SO as to annex tract Tract. Of land can only
ecuted at the instance of the state by
proper public officers. Topeka VS.. Dwyer,
10 Kan. IA, followed
All the Justices concurring.
Attest D. A. VALENTINE,
Il ISea1J - Clerk Supreme Court.
No 1850 .e "a
Joseph Eble - al
I The State. of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Burch, j.
/, 1. The county attorney has power to
bring p suit in the name of the state to
enjotn obstructionssto travel upon a pub
lie Highway without authority from the
withstanding the dissemination or refusal
of the local highway officers to move in
e. A bond given at the institution of pro-
ceedings to open a road under the law of
1863 is not void because signed by one pc
titioner as principal and by a single sure
ty who is also a petitioner.
g. The statute vacating roads and barr
ing authority for, opening roads which
have remained unopened for seven years
after orders have been made or author
fty has been granted for opening them
does not apply to a discontinuance of use
after road has been opened.
4. private individual cannot obtain title
to a public highway by adverse possession.
Lapse of time will not bar the remedies of
the state against encroachment upon a
highway. An obstruction to the public
use of a highway is a. continuing nuisance
and no equities in favor of a person
committing such a nuisance can be found
ed upon the acquiescepce of the highway
or other officials or upon their laches in
taking steps to punish or abate it.
o. 1t must appear that the denial of a
request upon the trial court to state find
ings of fact and conclusions of law sepa-
rately has prejudiced the substantial
rights of the party making the request
before a Judgment will be reversed be-
cause of such denial.
All the Justices concurring.
a true copy.
Attest: D. "A. VALENTINE
tSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.
L. T. Martin and Ella H. Martin
VS..
Elem K Hoffman
Error from Phillips County
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Benson,
l. A general finding in favor of either
party .s a finding in his favor of all facts
necessary to constitute his calm.
2. The evidence upon which a finding is
made cannot be reviewed in this court;
except so far as may be necessary to de-
termine whether there was competent
evidence sufficient to support the finding.