The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-04-10

from the Shawnee district court. two
of which were reversed and one
affirmed.
In the case of Sarah Kiehl VS.. G.
M. Jamison the supreme court held
that the plaintiffs land in Park Place,
an addition to this city should be
opened for the passage of the Union
avenue road through the tract and
the fact that plaintiff had closed up
the land and kept it so for good
many years did not prevent the
opening of the road at any time under
due process of law.
In the case of Frank M. BoyleS VS..
Frank P. Bradley the lower court in
favor of Bradley was reversed and
the case remanded for a new trial.
The possession of wheat in the value
of Sis was involved in this litigation
and the result depended upon the
terms of an oral lease. Bradley
leased a farm to Frank Boyles for
crop rent and when they came to di
vide the crop grown on the place it
was found that they did not agree as
to the terms of the lease.
The third Shawnee case was that
of Ginter VS.. Ginter and in this case
the lower court was affirmed. In this
case Louis Ginter, by the terms of his
will. left one-half of mis- property to
his wife and small requests to other
members of his family and the re-
mainder of his estate to his son
Frederick and the latter was named
as executor. After the will had been
probated John Ginter, another son,
brought suit to have the will set aside
on the grounds that of undue in
fiuence and fraud practiced upon his
father by Frederic Ginter.~-The court
held that the will of the elder Ginter
was a perfectly natural Will and de-
clined to set it aside.
The decision is a lengthy one, TAX
ing some twenty-five typewriter
pages and goes into the case at length
and in detail. 1t is held that to de-
stroy the validity of a will undue in
huence must amount to coercion, COM
| pulsion or constraint, which destroys
| the testator's free agency and by
| overcoming his power of resistance
| obliges him to adopt the viii OF an
other instead of exercising ms own.
| Suspicion, conjecture, possibility or
guess that that undue influence or
! fraud has induced "a will is not sufti-
| cient to support verdict TO that
! effect. Power. motive and oppor-
tunity to exercise undue influence 90
| not alone authorize the inference
that such influence has in fact been
exercised.
In deciding that case of Jacob l..
Crfgler vs. c. V. Shepler, the supreme
court held that the owner of intoxlcat-
| ing LIQUOR in another state cannot come
into this state or sent his agents here
and in defiance of the laws of this
state carry on the business OF SOLICIT
ing orders for intoxicating liquors 10
be shipped from such other state VIII
out mourning the penalties OF law, nor
can payment of commissions due the
local agent be enforced by law. Crigler,
! in this case is a wholesale liquor deal-
er of Kentucky and Shepler is his agent,
and is suing for commission on orders.
In deciding that case of the city of
lLeavenworth VS.. Ralph A Ewing, the
latter an agent of the United states
Express company, the supreme cour
held that the city could enforce anu
collect license tax, or occupation LAX
from the express company, and the Iacl
that the company did an interstate bus
mess did not have any particular pear
ing in the matter at all. as the TACT tnat
the company received packages from
persons in that city consigned 10 per-
sons in this state made the company
liable for the occupation tax.
The supreme court held today that
where a person procures the signature
of another party to lease or document
by fraudulent representation, that even
though the party signing the paper can
read he is not necessarily bound Dy
its provisions in the fact of previous
oral agreement to contrary stlpulatlons:
This decision was made in the case or
T. o. Tanton VS.. L. r. and E. L. Mar
tin, appealed from Sedgw1ek county.
In this section plaintiff sought 10 re-
cover 5000 additional from defendants as
cash rent for a farm in addition TO
crop rent The latter had signed a
lease in which this $2G0 provision had
been inserted after an oral agreement
had been made as to crop rent. The
court held that defendants were not
bound to pay this sum, as their agree
ment to do so was obtained by fraud
Attorney General JackSonS custer
suit against the Lemp Brewing COM
pany of St. Louis, on the grounds that
| that corporation was doing business in
the state without permission or auth
| ority from the state charter board ana
without payment of charter fee was
passed upon favorably by the supreme
court today and the judgment of custer
granted The decision in this case is
| important in it's relation to other ana
more important custer suits by the at
torney general against railroads and
other corporations on the same grounds
as alleged in this suit.
Supreme Court Decisions.
Opinions handed down by the SUI
! preme court on Saturday.. April 10,
\ 1909:
| BY JOHNSTON, c. J.
! w. B. Killer VS.. Frank Wohletz: err
ror from Atchison county. Reversed
and remanded for a new trial.