davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
First published in The Topeka State
Journal. "wednesday. March 2, 1870

First published in The Topeka State
Journal, wednesday, March 2, 1901
State of Kansas Shawnee County, IS.
In the Matter of the Estate of Charles
Stone late of Shawnee County, Kansas.
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT
Notice is hereby given that on the Path
day of February, A. D. 1910. the under
signed was, by the Probate Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas. duly appointed
Administrator with the will annexed of
the estate of Charles Stone, late of Shaw
nee county, deceased. All parties interest
ed in said estate will take notice and
govern themselves accordingly
A. G. OLSON, Administrator.
First published in The Topeka State
Journal Wednesday, Feb 16. 1901
SHERIFF"S SALE
Case No. 1888.
In the District Court of Shawnee County,
State of Kansas.
Monadnock Savings Bank Plaintiff,
Edward Cummins. Margaret Cummins and
Madge J. Hagan, Defendants.
BY virtue of an Order of Sale issued to
me, out of said District Court, in the
above-entitled action, I will, on Monday,
the 21st day of March, A d. 1910. at 10
O'Clock a. m. of said day, at the east front
door of the Court House in the City of
Topeka, in the County Of Shawnee, in the
State of Kansas, offer at public sale, and
sell to the highest and best bidder, for
cash In hand. all the followine-descrihsd
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. Is, 439.
H. w. McAfee, Appellee,

o. E. Walker, Appellant.
Appeal from Shawnee County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason, ].
/ Neither the statute of frauds nor the
act relating to partition fences renders
unenforcibIe an oral agreement by the
occupants of adjoining lands that until
the arrangement is changed by mutual
consent or the withdrawal of one of the
parties each shall maintain one half of a
division fence.
>. Where a bull over a year old escapes
from the land of the owner to that of a
neighbor by reason of the failure of the
latter to keep up a portion of the division
fence in accordance with an agreement
between them, no action for the resulting
damages can be maintained under the
statute Gen. Stat. 1901, sec. 1880 forbid
ding owners of animals to permit them to
run at large
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
lSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 16, 426.
j. d. Lewis, Appellee.


VS..
The Barton Salt Company, Appellant.
appeal from Reno County
AFFIRM ED.
syllabus By the Court Smith, J.
Chan. a5s, a1c1nGy. act act Claws Of 1903,
60 risk, but does not exclude the defense
or contributory negligence.
4 Inc questions whether it was practi-
cable to safeguard the pans and whether
me plaintiff was guilty of contributory
determined by the verdict on confiicting
evidence. The verdict was approved nv
a me oriaI court, and we cannot weigh the
All the Justices concurring.
AFttest; D. A. VALENTINE,
loeaAI Clerk Supreme Court.
T. T. Walrond and Mary D. walrond;
Appellants,
VS..
Appe Fl MS royye ct al, Appellees.
AFFIRMED.
SYLLABUS BY the Court. Graves J.
l.. A purchaser of school land made de-
lauIt In payment and the state took the
statutory steps to declare forfeiture of
lne contract. After forfeiture the land
was sold to other purchasers who went
INTO possession and made improvements
than ten years the first purchaser made
tender of the amount due upon his con-
m rpaoc, winch was refused; He then con-
ndenced an action of ejectment to re-
cover the possession of the land from
tHe second purchasers upon the ground
thaI the forfeiture proceedings were
void The forfeiture was claimed 10 bs
invand because the return of the sheriff
did not show a full compliance with The
statute as to the service of notice. Upon
the trial the court permitted the sheriff
10 state orally what he actually did in
making such service whereby the defect
IN the return was cured and the service
was shown to be sufficient. Held that the
oral evidence was properly admitted.
Z where in such case the Sheriff'S
return describes the land where notice
OF forfeiture was served as the N. Z. N.
W. S6-9-13, such description does not rem
der the service void where the notice
upon which the return is written contains
an accurate description of the land to
land.
g.. Where the county clerk keeps a book
IN his office in which school lands sold
are recorded and in which forfeitures are
noted, notation in such record opposite
lands threin which reads: Notice issued
December 2, 1895. and Forfeited February
70, 1886, such notations are prima facie
evidence that such lands were forfeited at
the date stated.
f. Chapter 1913 of the Laws of 1907 was
to operate retroactively and is
not void for that reason.
All the Justices concurrlng.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16

No 16, 1872.
NJ. B. Patton. Jacob Dittman and r. w.
Gudgeon, Appellants,
VS..
The Hamilton Coal and Mercantile Com
pany, Appellee.
Appeal from Crawford County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Smith, j.
Where a lessee at the time of making
the lease deposits money with the lessor
as an advance payment of crtain sums to
become due by the terms of the lease from
time to time, the lessor has no cause of
action against the lessees to recover any
such sums of money which have become
due while a sufficient amount of the de-
post remains in his hands to discharge
the same.
All the Justices concurrlng.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE.
(Seall Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 1899.
E. w. Hanslip, Appellant,

E. w. Hanslip, Appellant,
The Usage City Cemetery Association.
Appeal from Usage County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Porter. j.
ton Incorporated in 1876 for the. purpose
of laying out, plating and maintaining
a public cemetery or place of sepulture
contained provision that the eapital
be divided into sixty shares of SO each.
The full amount of the stock was sub
scribed and issued. and a board OF oil
pervision of the affairs of the association.
The association purchased twenty acres
owner to be used as a cemetery in pay
ment for which he received thirty shares
OF the st0ce ana me t Escent FROM the
sale of lots and expend at least $500 in
improving the land as a cemetery. The
sold for the purpose of sculpture, and it
has ever since been maintained as ceme-
Kan 557, that the association is a public
and not private corporation and that 1t
hs g M In isoa ths DEFENDANT Became the
owner of all except one share of the
stock issued by the association referred
ing of the board of directors, the officers
of the association were authorized to ex-
S veying a to him din ali the property Of
the association consisting of the
lInpIatted lands The only consideration
for the conveyances was that the defend
ant was to transfer to the association his
shares of stock and cancel an indebted
ness which he claimed the association
owed him on account of services rendered.
cancel the conveyances, that they were
void for want of consideration and be-
cause executed without authority.
g. Conclusions of law made by referee
are not binding upon the trial court, and
the court may without formally setting
eli he findings
and determine the law for itself.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy. "
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
TSeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16

which took effect on March r. 1907, the
legislature made the recognition and en-
based on publication service obligatory
IN this state, and placed such DEGREES on
of this state with respect to all persons,
and the status of all persons, affected-
5.-Giying the decree of the Missouri
court the force 1t would have if rendered
by a court of this state, it was effect
ual as if it had been founded on personal
the plaintiff was no longer the defendant s
wife The cause was open for the cons1d-
nIicafio OF inc snp1ecr OF amohy hs NO ae
scented and no award having been made
the judgment is bar to tie recovery of
not specifically referred to IN the decree.
The facts embraced in the issues pre-
cree rests are res judicata. The district
court of Riley county had no autuhorIty
which the right to alimony depends. and
the plaintiff no longer mas any OF the
rights which a wife possesses respecting
her husbands property.
6.-The case of Roe v. Roe, 81 Kan. 724.
approved and followed. The case Of Rod
gers v. Rodgers, 56 Kan. 4S3, distinguished.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1886.
The Bethany Hospital Company, APP
pellee,
Appeal from Allen County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court Johnston, T. J.
/. An action BY a devisee under a will
conceded to be valid. to cancel and set
aside a deed which the maker of the will
when he was of unsound mind is equit-
able in character and therefore neither
s pa1ty is en5 a1er 6 6e rgR gry
2. The trial court having called a jury
to answer special questions OF fact was
at liberty either to adopt the answers re-
turned by the jury or to ignore them and
make findings of it's own based upon an
independent consideration of the testi-
8. Where the devisee of the will brought
an action before the will was probated
amended and supplemental petition on
which the cause of action was tried the
objection that the action was prematureiy
brought became immaterial-
4. A deed executed by one insane to an
other who has knowledge of the mental
no substantial consideration for the prop
erty is an absolute nullity which does not
operate to revoke a valid will previously
made by the grantor and a devlSee under
the will has sufficient interest to justify
him in maintaining action against the
grantee to declare the deed to be void al
though there has been no prior disaffrm-
ance of the deed tender back OF tho
consideration paid by the grantee.
B. A petition alleging that the deed was
void because of the mental weakness of
the grantor and the undue influence ex-
ercised upon him while in that condition
and asking to have the deed adjudged to
be void states only single cause or ac-
ton.
g. The testimony examined and held to
be sufficient to uphold the finding of the
trial court that the grantor was without
mental capacity to execute the deed IN
All the Justices concurring except Ben
son, J., who did not sit
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
TSeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 1854.

No 1854
~ James Fee, Jr., Plaintiff.
VS..
W. D. Richardson, Defendant.
No. 1885
P ]. Corcoran, Plaintiff
VS..
VIM. Brown, Defendant.
Original Proceedings in Quo Warranto.
Judgment for Defendants.
Syllabus BY the Court Smith j
The marshalS provided for in each divis-
ion of the city court of Kansas City. Kan
saS. by Chapter 1873, Laws of 1906 are not
city officers and women are not quail
fled voters in the election of such Off
GERS.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaLl Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
GEO. W. TITUS. Pres.
first published in The Topeka State
Journal wednesday, March 9. 1901

State of Kansas, Shawnee County IS.
In the Matter of the Estate of Clara W.
Scofieid, late OF Shawnee County. Kansas.
NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT.
Notice is hereby given that on the sth
day of March, A ID. 1910, the undersigned
was, by the Probate Court OF Shawnee
County, Kansas, duly appointed Execu-
tor of the estate of Clara W. Scofield. late
of Shawnee County, deceased. All parties
interested in said estate will take notice
and govern themselves accordingly.
RAL<PH WALDO RAIDER, Executor.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 16,41S
E. v. Sayers, Appellee,

No. 16, Alb
E. ". Sayers, Appellee,
VS..
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company.
Appellant.
Appeal from Franklin County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston, c. J.
1. A landlord, who is to receive a share
of the crop as rent, may maintain an ac-
ton without joining the tenant and re-
cover from railway company which OBJ
structed river resulting in flooding the
land and injuring and destroying part of
the crops growing thereon but can only
recover to the extent of his share
3 The measure of damages for the
destruction of a growing crop is the
value. of the crop in its condition at the
time and place it was destroyed and if
only injured 1t is the difference in value
before and after the injury.
All the Justices concurring except Ben
son. j. who did not sit.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 16, 4O5.
Belle Pilgrim, Appellant.

Belle Pilgrim, Appellant,
The Verdigris Valley Vitrified Brick and
Tile Company. Appellee.
Appeal from Wilson County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Smith. ].
1. In an action by the next of kin of a
deceased against an employer for dam
red from injuries received while the de-
cedent was 1aboring for the employer it
devolves upon the plaintiff to allege and
establish by evidence that the injury oc
CURED through the omission of some
duty which the master owed to the en-
ploye and that such omission was the
proXimate cause of the injury.
2. When upon the trial of such q case
the plaintiff has introduced his evidence
and rested his case and has failed to
establish such facts. prima facie, an order
sustaining a demurrer to his evidence is
proper.
All the Justices concurrlng.
A true copy
Attest: q. A. VALENTINE,
CSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. ,3S1.
Emma Blanche Mccormick, Appellee,


Emma Blanche Mccormick. Appellee,
Joseph L. Mccormick, Appellant.
Appeal from Riley County
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Burch, j.
In December. 1907, the defendant obtain
ed q, divorce. from his wife. the plaintiff.
Missouri according to the laws of that
state. The wife was residing at the time
in Shawnee county, Kansas. All was
served by publication only. She knew of
the tendency of the action but made no
appearance. The decree made no reference
to alimony property rights. In July,
1908. tn plaintiff brought an action for all
mony in Riley county, Kansas, where the
defendant had real estate which was
sequestered to pay the Judgment sought
The defendant pleaded the Missouri lie
cree and offered it in evidance at the trial
Held:
THE present action was properly in
stituted in Riley county.
1.-The Missouri court had Jurisdiction
to hear the cause before It ven ii the
allegations of the petition were false, and
to render the decree even if moved to do
so by false testimony
3.-The Missouri decree was not open to
collateral impeachment on the ground of
by chapter 1S4 of the laws of 1877.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
First published in The Topeka State
Journal March II. 1910.1

PROPOSAL FOR STABLE BUILDING.
AT MANHATTAN, KANSAS.
Sealed bids viii be received on or before
500 o'clock D. m, March 31st, 1910 for the
erection of frame stable at EUREKA
LAKE, for the "REBEKAH ODD FELL
LOWS HOME" in accordance with plans
and specifications now on file with 2. r.
Piersol, Superintendent Manhattan, Kan
sas, and with Will J. Russell. Grand Sec
rotary, L. o. o. F.. 5th and Quincy streets,
The right is reserved to reject any and
GEO. w. TITUS. Pres.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16

No 1902.
Hills S. Mitchell, as Guardian, ETC.,
Appellant.
s. ]. Kelly. Administrator, etc, Appellee.
Appeal from Johnson County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Burch j.
An action may be maintained in the dis
tr1ct court against the administrator of a
guardian who converted his ward S
money, became inSOlvent and died, and
against the SuretieS on the guardian
bond, without a previous settlement of the
guardians accounts in the probate court.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
lSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
D. A. VALENTINE.
Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 16, 404.
A. B. Cooper, Appellee,

No 16, 4O4
A. B. Cooper, Appellee,
VS..
John Rhea, Appellant.
Appeal from Trego County
REVERSED.
Syllabus BY the Court Mason. j.
l. Under the provision Gen. Stat. 1901,
sec. 5054, subd. 81 that Judgment may be
set aside at a subsequent term 'for mis-
take, neglect or omission of the clerk, or
irregularity in obtaining it, a court may
vacate a Judgment rendered on the plead
ings because of a misa pprehension as to
what allegations they in fact contained
The right to maintain an action to
remove a cloud from a title is a contin-
uing one to which the statute of limita-
ton is not applicable.
3. In an action brought to foreclose a
mortgage, in order to establish a ground
of recovery against a defendant who does
required to show that the mortgagor had
title to the property, 50 that the mortgage
created lien.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 16, 43o
Herman ]. Wilbers and Frank L. Will
bers, Appellants,
Charles Ronnau and Christina Ronnau,
Appeal from Pottawatomie County.
REVERSED
Az amended pleaeiinS CONTAINING a def
mite statement of facts concerning ma
terial matter, not in conflict with a gen
eral averment respecting the same subject
contained in the original petition, should
not be held to state new cause of ac-
tion,-it is only amplif1catfon of the
facts constituting the one first pleaded.
All the justices concurr1ng.
A true CODY.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1884
The Warren Mortgage Company, Appel
liant,
VS..
Charles Schick, Appellee
Appeal from Lyon County
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Graves. J.
Where question of fact is presented to
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
LEGAL.
SUPREME COURT SYLLADI.

No. 16 al.
Max Van Hall and Charles z. Hoffman,
Appellants.
VS..
Peter Goertz, Appellee.
Appeal from Stanton County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Benson, j.
l. A tax deed purporting to convey
twelve separate tracts was issued upon
g compromise of taxes under the prov1S-
ions of section 1872 of the General Statutes
of 1901 The recitals of the deed showed
the amount for which each tract had
been bid off by the treasurer for the
county and of the delinquent taxes
charged thereon for each of several years
afterwards. The amount for which the
assignment of all the tracts was made
was stated in a gross sum, and the
amount of subsequent taxes paid was also
given in a gross sum. The consideration
stated was the aggregate of these sums.
The deed had been of record for more
than five years at the time the suit was
commenced. 1t is held, that the amount
for which each tract was sold and con-
veyed may be ascertained from the face
of the deed with sufficient certainty to
satisfy the requirements of the statute
and that the deed is not void upon its
face.
, Paragraph 1 of the syllabus in Gibson
V. Cockrum ct al, 81 Kan - is fol-
lowed.
not decided.
All the justices concurring.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
ISeaLJ Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16

No. 16, $50
Steve Chase, Appellee,
VS..
E. T. Barnes, Appellant.
Appeal from Franklin County
Modified and Affirmed.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Mason. ].
In March the owner of farm land leased
it for the season, the tenant paying 500
at the time on account of the hay CROP
and agreeing to deliver two-fifths of the
other crops. In June the owner conveyed
the land, warranting against any incum-
orance. The grantee accepted from the
tenant two-fifthS OF the other crop and
sued the grantor for damages, claiming
their measure to be the value of the hay
crop at the time the deed was executed.
Held, that he was entitled to a recovery,
but only to the amount of 500.
All the justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
LSeaI.l Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
LEGAL.

under the directions of the foreman. put
back the crossing boards and threw in
some dirt. The foreman then said to him:
The crossing is ready for you, do you
think you can croSS?'' The plaintiff said
he. thought he could. In attempting to
drive over the temporary crossing the
load of hay was overturned and the
plaintiff was injured. Held, in an action
to recover damages, that in using the
temporary crossing which had been
placed there for his use the plaintiff acted
upon his own judgment with full knowl-
edge of its condition, and that there was
no negligence on the part of the railway
company which would entitle him to re-
cover
AL the Justices concurrlng.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
D. A. VALENTINE,
Clerk Supreme Court.

No 16, $685.
E. NJ. Elliott and NJ. l.. Elliott Appellees,
VS..
The Bellevue Gas and Oil Company. Ap-
pellant
Appeal from Chautauqua County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason. j.
Persons who have signed an affidavit
endorsed on an appeal bond, describing
themselves as SuretieS thereon must be
deemed, in the absence of some showing
to the contrary, to have intended thereby
to bind themselves in that capacity, and
therefore to have executed the bond, al
though their signatures are not otherwise
attached to it.
All the Justices concurring.
true cOpy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
LSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-03-16
No. 1885.
The State of Kansas, Appellee,

No 1885
The State of Kansas, Appellee,
Ira Brecount, Appellant.
Appeal from Cowley County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Porter, J.
1. Homicide to be eXcusable within the
provisions OF section lssS t5en; Sta o,oT1i
ted with lawful intent. 1t is not enough
that the act is one which under Ordinary
circumstances would be lawful and is
committed by means ordinarily lawful and
with the usual and ordinary caution
There must be absence of unlaWIuI IN
tent. -.
of a person found guilty by coroner
Jury takes the place of complaint, and
is sufficient authority for the holding OF
a preliminary examination before an ex-
amining magistrate.
All the Justices concurring
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
TSeaII Clerk Supreme Court.
The Royal Salt Company, a corporation
Appellant,
VS..
The Board of County Commissioners of
Appeal from Ellsworth County.
REVERSED.
SYLLABUS. BY the Court Johnston. C.. }.
While the decision of the tax commission
in fixing and equalizing the assessment
Of property Is Penary ae made the
petition of a tax payer for an ln1unctlon' |
In which il, is. alleged that the tax ak :, com
cessive valuation upon its property, one
which it knew to be GROSSLY. excessive yts
property much higher than it had placed
on similar property owned by otherS, /
states a good cause of action for equitable
relief and the demurrer thereto should
have been overruled.
All the Justices cOncurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSean Clerk Supreme Court.