The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-02-09

company soon after the injury, which
his physical and mental condition at the
time as affecting his understanding; put
neither the notice SO given nor the state &c
law to bar his claim.
2. Considering the nature of the plain
tiff'S injuries whereby both or MS tesS
were broken, and the evidence relating
thereto, the award of $4,000 damages APP
proved by the trial court. cannot be set
aside by this court as excessive.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
[SeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. Is ,sS9.
Modern Woodmen of America
Robert L. Comeaux and Addie NJ.
-Coneaux.
(. Error from Brown County.
REVERSED,
Syiia2 ~ ~, t ,,r {ried man without
living relatives He held benefit GER
tiffcate for one thousand dollars in the me
Modern Woodmen of America, of which
order he was a member, in good standing
He was sick and without home To Sc
cure a place where he. could live and De
cared for, he entered INTO an agreement
with a neighbor who was Keeping hotel:
the Meef hotel Keeper Should be placed in the
benefit certificate as beneficiary, ana ne
should also have all the go, properly 4rSicb 5hgl
was to have. home at the hotel as part .s
Of the hotel keepers family during his his
name of the hotel keeper was inserted IN
the certificate as stt gPeIsdddn,t being p
designated msds as will by depe Which his
property bsaueatdheSda ter t6 the k, yi IS
the hotel to live. and remained there Until
his death which occurred few, months
afterwards. Held that the hotel keeper
was not a dependent upon D. within the
meaning of the law relating to fraternaI
associations, and had no valid claim
against the order as a beneficiary.
does not belong to the class which, by the
rules Of the aa tfs entted to be-
come beneficiary, is inserted In a bene-
fit certificate, such person has no right 70
the acceptance of assessments paid. after
his name has been SO inserted, will not
confer such right.
Ali the Justices cencurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
fSeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1912.
The Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway
=. Company.
The New Era Milling Company.
Error from Labette County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court: Mason. j.
part of its coInmon-law obligation-a
railroad company is required to treat its
patrons impartially and to avoid unjust
2. Any discrimination in charges on the
part OF a common carrier is unjust Tor
which no sufficient reason exists in the
character of the service.
3. The requiem ent that one shipper
shall pay a higher rate for substantially
similar services rendered under. substan-
TALLY similar conditions is an unjust dis
elimination, of which any one may COM
plain who is thereby injured.
a. A shipper has Alright to demand that
the rates charged him shall not only be
reasonable in themselves, in respect to
the profit TO the carrier, but reasonable in
respect to the charges made for similar
other shippers who are or who may be
his business competitors.
5. Where tariff of railroad company
fixes a rate on shipments originating on
its own line or on certain enumerated
connecting lines; it assumes the obligation
shipm ents originated on other lines as
well, and If such shipper is required to
than that named in the tariff, he is en-
titled to recover the amount of over
6. Where the plaintiff does not rely
upon the interstate commerce act. but
bases his claim on common-law principles
brought in the state court, although the
Shipments involved were made across
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court.
No. is, s2e
H. T. Leeman and c. f. Prehm
John Page and w. L. Harper
Error from Cherokee County.
MODIFIED
Syllabus. BY the Court. Mason, D.
1. A surety on a bond was required to
make a payment for his principal, who
assigned him a note for indemnity any
surplus realized therefrom to be returned.
The surety placed the note in Judgment
and bought in a town lot on execution
sale. He then bought for 81 $1,000 note
for that amount secured by trust deed
or the same lot, had a sale msde there
under. and again bought tEs property IN
| for $4,000. There was no specific evidence
| of the value Of the note after creditng 1t
with the proceeds of this sale, and the cir
curnstanceS tended to- indicate that 1T was
not regarded as having any considerable
value He then sold the lot. his deed re-
citing a consideration of $4,000. The
evidence showed that he received only
S. 5OOe0 in cash; that the buyer gave also
some property in the transaction: 1t was
not shown distinctly that he received this
property nor what it, was worth; held in
an action by the principal for an account
ing that under the circumstances Of the
a. He could not complain on review
/ that the trial court charged him with the
amount recited as the consideration OF
the deed: but,
| b. He should have been given credit for
the amount he paid for the $1,500.00 note
less any actual value represented by the
/ note after the proceeds OF the sale under
the trust deed had been credited thereon
Il ~ for n accounting