The Topeka state journal., 1908-04-15

Attest: d A. VALENTINE,
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. Is, 463.
The Kansas Buff Brick and Manufacture
ing Company
Eli Stark and Mary NJ Stark
Error from Wilson County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Benson, ]
l. The violation Of duty imposed by
establish the liability OF the owners Of
manufacturing esta blishments for injur-
2. Where such liability is claimed under
this statute, contributory negligence of
the injured party. is an affirmative de-
fense to be established by evidence, and
the doctrine of the assumption of risk is
not availa Bile as a defense.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany, of California,
William Despair.
Error from the Court of Common Pleas
of Wyandotte County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston. c. J;
In an action on policy which insured
plaintiff against the effects of bodily in
juries sustained during the term Of the
policy and caused solely through exter-
nal. violent and accidental means. and
wherein It was stipulated that a certain
indemnity should be paid If the irrecover-
able loss of the sight of both eyes should
result from such injuries independently
of all other causes and that the policy
did not cover anything Of which the sole
or secondary or contrfbutory cause is, or
by or under the influence Of, bodily in
trinity. where the plaintiff averred that
he lost his sight by reason Of an injury
sustained at a certain time and where
one Of the defenses of the insurance COM
pany was that an injury received long be-
fore that time, and prior to the issuance
Of the policy. contributed to, II it did not
wholly cause the blindness of defendant,
and where testimon tending to support
that defense was produced by defendant,
as well as another defense to the effect
policy was issued, were false. it was the
duty OF the trial court to submit these
questions to the jury.
should not restrict or ignore any of the
issues formed by the pleadings and sup
ported by the proof and where defendant
pleads several defenses and offers proof
to sustain them, a charge by the court
which ignores one or more of such de-
fenses and authorizes the return of YER
dict against defendant If the jury decides
other issues in favor of the plaintiff is
error.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
y
lSeal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1546e.
A. NJ. Horner
Theodore g schinstock.
Error from Kingman County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Mason, J.
Evidence is not rendered non-cumula-
tive, so as to afford a basis for demanding
a new trial on the ground of newly dis
evidence, merely because 1t is to
be furnished by a stranger to the litiga-
ton upon a matter otherwise covered
only by the testimony Of the parties.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
[Sea1.1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. Is, 40
Charles Waltercheid and William Wal
tercheid
VS..
]. L. Bowd!sh, as Receiver Of the B. and
G. Pump Mfg. Co.
0' V AFFTRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Smith, ].
l. Where a corporation, which has pur-
chased the mercantile business and stock
Of an Individual and has assumed all the
liabilities of the business, is impleaded
with the individual in an action to recover
out or the iDa1
results in a judgment against the corpor-
alton, is pending, the corporation re-sells
TO anOther corporation WHICH IN Lurn as
sumes and agrees to pay all the liabilities
Of the former:-held, that the statute of
limitations does not begin to run in favor
Of stockholders Of the latter corporation
SO long as the creditor is prosecuting,
with reasonable diligence, actions to es-
tabiish the liability of the successive pur-
chaserS
2. In such a case the liability of stock
holders of the last purchasing corporation
Is based upon contract and the repeal Of
Section 1902 and 1915 Gen. Stat. 1901, which
imposed the liability and provided the
remedy, at a time when an action was
pending to establish the liability of the
corporation is imperative In an action to
enforce the double liability Of the stock
holders for the purpose of paying the
8. In such case, the statute being in
force at the time the corporation assumed
the obligation, was, in effect, part of the
contract and any subsequent law of the
state which abrogated the liability or so
affected the remedy as to substantially
impair and lessen the value of the con-
tract is in derogation of Article l Sec. 10
Of the Constitution of the United States
which ordains that mo state shall =.
obligation of contracts"
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 15,4n
diley Hawkins
E. C. Windhorst.
Error from Edwards County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court: Porter. j.
Where the issue is whether a husband
was the agent of his wife with authority
to sign her name to a check upon her