davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 1921.
Jesse Casteel. Minor. etc, Appellee,

No. 1921.
Jesse Casteel, a Minor, etc, Appellee,
The Pittsburg vitrified Paving & Build
ing Brick Company, Appellant.
Appeal from Crawford County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Mason. ].
i. Under the statute lGen. Stat. 1909,
Secs. sos and $685. providing that mo
person under sixteen years of age shall
any place dangerous or injurious to life,
limb, health or morals" and providing
penalty for a violation Of such pro
years old who is injured at such an oc-
cupation may recover damages against
his employer, although the Statute does
not in terms give him a right of action.
2. In such an action it is not necessary
for the plaintiff to pr prove that the de-
3. Ordinarily whether particular oc-
cupation is dangerous within the mean
| ing of the statute is question of fact.
4. An occupation is dangerous within
the meaning E: OF the statute ,WheneveG
| the person engaged in it, whether the
risks ARISES from inherent character OF
corried ON, even although the danger may
be eliminated by the exercise of due care
| and skill on the part of the employee
! under 16-years of age is unlawful because
his occupation exposes him to danger
1a lure IA in Inc eonseauence of SUCH exposure
! the violation of the law is the proximatt
g. In an action under sne statute the
the evidence tended to show these facts
| the plaintiff was required to ride upor
| a dumping car drawn by a horse ovel
| rough track Astounding in curves an6
! running close to a steep bank of shale
| the car often jumped the vrack; the box
| the top of which was five feet from the
| ground. was arranged SO as to empty t
/ either side and had--a lateral play o.
i several inches: he was instructed to keel
the car. IN balance by shifting his posi-
| ton: a wheel struck lump of shall,
i near the track and the car stopped
throwing him out and breaking his arm
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 1921.
Lloyd B. Terrell, Appellant.

Lloyd B. Terrell, Appellant.
Edith NJ Stanley, formerly Edith NJ. Fer
rell, Appellee.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
AFFIRMED.
SYLLABUS BY the Court Smith. j.
l. In an action by a widow to maintain
her rights derived through the execution
of a parole ante-nuptial contract of mar
riage, the contract being executed by
both parties thereto, the statute of frauds
has no application. Such executed con-
tract is valid.
2. Where, in the part performance of
an ante-nuptial contract, a husband pro-
cures. a change in a certificate of insur-
ance, in which his children were the sole
beneficiaries, so as to make his wife an
equal beneficiary with the children, and
where she has fully executed the. ante
nuptial contract on her part, she thereby
4ificate and he cannot thereafter. without
her consent, Surrender the certificate and
obtain the issuance of a new one in which
third party is named as the sole bene-
ficiary and thus divest he< OF her inter-
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13


VS..
j. T. Butler. Appellant. and George E
Butler ct al, Appellees-
Appeal from Jewell County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Benson. ]
1. The effect of a clause In an tnstru-
ment, otherwise in the usual form of .
Possession 81 of the premises Mise for the life
of the grantor. with the right to q re-
conveyance whenever demanded, Ii re-
+ferred to but not decided
2. The rule that before a deed can
operate as valid transfer of title thare
(Wuester VS.. Folin. 60 sKan. 334) is ap-
piled to the evidence and it Is found that
there was no evidence to sustain find
ing OF delivery.
g. Where an issue was fairly tried
after full opportunity had been afforded
20 present the case, and there was no
accident or surprise nor any ruling
causing a party to withhold his evidence
and all the facts appear to be fully pre-
scented by the evidence, leaving only
questions OF law to be decided, this court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
LEGAL.

est in the certificate which was procured
pursuant to such contract.
3. The rights of a beneficiary named
in certificate of insurance in no wise
depends upon the possession Thereof by the
beneficiary.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: ID. A. VALENTINE.
(Seal1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
D. A. VALENTINE.
Clerk Supreme Court

tes5 3 No. 16,7U.
Mary~L. Legsdon ct al, Appellees,
--s----- VS..
o. b. Hudson ct al, Appellants.
Appeal from Haskell County.
r. AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Benson J.
A compromise of d disputed claim made
upon sufficient consideration, with knowl-
edge of facts upon which an alleged de-
Tense thereto is based, Will operate as q
surrender of such defense. when the adj
verse party has executed the terms Of the
settlement on his part.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
ESeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
D. A. VALENTINE.
, Clerk Supreme Court
Ne II, 299.
IN RE

~ 81 -, - Ne. Il, 299. 4. s4 ~, .sse
IN RE
GEORGE e. MORAN
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.
DENIED.
Syllabus. By the Court Graves. J.
20 100 an e. $3.50 0b tae cas,rt
has authority to examine for concealed
or embezzled property belonging to an es-
tate and enforce its return to the admin
istrator or other proper custodian, and ff
the person SO embezzling OF concealing
order to restore the same, he may be I'M
prisoned as for contempt of court and
when so imprisoned, he will not be dis
charged by a writ of habeas corpus.
All the justices concurring.
, Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
lSeaLl Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No.~16, $50.
Victor Johnson, Appellee,

Ida Harvey and John Harvey, her hus-
- band, Appellants.
Appeal from Learenworth County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus By the Court. Porter, J.
Plaintiff brought an action to foreclose
mortgage which was in the form of a
warranty deed. The answer consisted of
a general denial, an express admission
that the deed was executed for the pur-
pose of securing an extension of a note
and mortgage which were Cancelled and
surrendered to the defendants, and furth-
er iailegsd that one OF the purposes Tor or
enable the Hortgagor to avoid the pay
ment of taxes. There was no plea of
payment. Held, that the answer stated
no defense and that judgment was right
ly awarded on the pleadings.
Ali the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D.. A. VALENTINE.
ISeal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
d. A. VALENTINE.
Clerk Supreme Court.
No. i6, I'll
The Badger Lumber Company, Appellant

N o.. 10, Ill.
The Badger Lumber Company. Appellant.
Alfred D. Martin and ans Helen F. Martin,
Appellees.
Appeal from Dickinson County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Smith. J.
l.. In an actiongSto have a mechanics
lien adjudged and. foreclosed, the allega-
ton of the petition that a statement
therefor was filed within four months af-
ter the completion of the work, being
trayersed, a lien should be denied II no
evidence of such filing is produced on
the trial.
q In this case the defendants rendered
the issue that the alleged improvements were
of no value for the purposes for which
they were ordered and produced evidence
tending TO support such issue; The plain
the material used, If taken from the
building held that a finding of the jury
that the Improvement was of no value
as such, and general verdict for the
plaintiff for the value of the materials,
being approved by the court. the judg-
ment thereon will not be reversed.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
lSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No: 1874

mo. 1874
Howard Tiff, Appellee.
The Cudahy Packing Company, Appel
Appeal4f<om Sedgwick County,
,-ss - AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Benson. ]
A laborer who as part of his regular
duties was ordered to keep the elevator
pit in a packing-house clean of refuse.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
- No 1884.
Mary Graden. Appellee.

Frederick Mails ct al, Appellants.
Appeal from Ellis County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Johnston, G. J.
1. Where an order is made by g. pro-
bate court and through accident, mis-
take or neglect is. not entered on the
records it is competent for the court tp
the lapse of considerable time and upon
any satisfactory evidence. parol as wen
as written.
2. Lapse Of time may call for closer
scrutiny and stronger testimony showing
that the order was in fact made and as
to the nature and extent of the ruling
and also as to the effect the belated
entry may have upon third parties, but
when it is made by court having the
power to do SO 1t must be respected and
enforced the same as If it had been en-
tered when 1t was made.
All the justices concurring.
A true copy. ~
Attest: D.A- VALENTINE.
tSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
LEGAL.

Held, that the jury were justified In find
ing that the plaintiffs occupation was
dangerous and that. his injury was the
proximate result of the violation of the
statute. -
All the Justices concurring. $1,000
a true copy.
Attest: d. "A. VALENTINE,
ISeRll Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 1881.
Anton Ozorkiewicz, Appellant,

a
.. VS..
The Carr Coal Mining & Manufacturing
Company, Appellee.
Appeal from Leayenworth County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Graves. J
1. Where IN an action by an employee
of coal company to recover damages
for personal injuries received by him in
the coal mine, the issue in controversy
being whether or not the operators of
the mine violated the law by neglecting
to furnish the plaintiff with suitable props
as required by the statute and the evil
dence is conflicting. a question of fact is
presented which ought to be submitted
to the jury and not decided upon re-
ufurrer to the evidence.
When IN such case it is claimed
that such failure to comply with the law
was winful which claim is denied len tbs
ought to be submitted to a jury and
in this case it was error to decide these
questions upon a demurrer to the. evil
dence. E5z
All the Justices concurr1ng. ~
A true copy. -
Attest: D. A VALENTINE. -
tSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. .ls. 730.
H. G. Wiley, Appellant,

Va
John Helen ct al. Appellees.
Appeal from Lyon County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Burch, J.
L. The signing of a contract to- con-
v,ey real estate by the party TO be charged
IN suit for specific performance salts
fIess the statute of frauds; and want of
mutually in the contract because the
party suing did not sign is not defense
to the action.
g. The mere naming of a day on or be-
fore which a contract for the conveyance
of real estate shall be consu1nmated does
not make. time of the essence sof the. con-
tract and if an abstract showing mar
ketable title is to be produced 1T may be
perfected, and title even may be- per-
fected within a reasonable time beyond
the day named.
g. AT the close of the PLAINTIFFS evil
dence in a suit for specific performance
a demurrer to the evidence was inter
posed which the court took under con-
sideration while the trial proceeded.
When both parties had rested the court
reverted to the demurrer to the plain
tiffs evidence and enormously sustained
it. Held, another trial is not necessary
and that the cause will be remanded for
judgment according to the evidence.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
ISeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13

STATE SENATOR.
Special Election. ,

:, I, G. E. Denton, Secretary of State of
Inc state of Kansas do hereby certify
that the above and. foregoing is a true
abstract of votes cast at.the General Elee-
ton held November S. 1910.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
u IS: Eas5,s! No. .16, 756.
Ca IIesssA-A Administrator, Appellee,
VS..
XNil1iarn II ri Mig AnneIlanf :

William HartWig, Appellant,
Appeal from ALLEN County
saet8 IA REVERSED.
Syllabus. : BY the Court. Johnston. c. ].
l. No one is disqualified as witness
by reason of his interest in the result
of litigation and the term party as
used in Section 800 of the civil code which
prohibits a party. from testifying con-
corning personal transactions and COM
munications with a person since deceased
does, not mean or include one not tech
much he may be interested in the result
of the action. .
q. While complete and unconditional
delivery is essential to the validity. of
a gift a. constructive symbolic deliv-
cry will meet the requirements of the law
and where there is delivery. the fact
that the property may be redelivered to
the donor as agent or trustee of the
donee orsfor safe keeping Will not nullify
or affect. the gift. =
g. Testimony relating to a gift held
to be sufficient to require the submission
of the question to the jury.
! All the Justices concurring.
Attest -. D. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 16, 697.
J. H. Mercer, Appellee,

J. H. Mercer, AppeIIee,
VS..
A. L. Morrison, Appellant.
Appeal from Chase County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus BY the Court Mason, j.
, 1. An erroneous instruction is not
ground for reversal where the amount OF
recovery shows that the jury did not act
upon it.
2. In preparing an abstract to present
the question whether there was evidence
to support a. verdict, the appellant may
and should omit testimony which is mere
" repetition.
All the justices concurring.
Attest:s 'SsS HaA. VALENTINE. =
tsealE es,f Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 1914.
Hiram Hulse, Appellee.


/ Hiram Hulse, Appellee.
F. H. Webster ct al, Appellants.
Appeal from Shawnee County. s<--t-
4-----,t=- AFFIRMED. -ss-z
Syllabus. By the Court. Graves, }.
"A lease ? by its terms rermipatedsy in
one year but contained in addition a
provision which reads: ---'-- - 80
1T is also agreed by party of the first
at their option. continue this lease to
July 1, 1908, by paying thirty-three and
one-third $3.50 dollars on the first day
of every month during its continuation.
Held that under this stipulation the les
see by exercising his option at the ex,
his lease two years or to July 1, 1908, and
became liable to pay rent ror that time.
1t was unnecessary in order to become
liable for rent to exercise his option every
month. -.
All the Justices concurring.
"A true copy.
Attest. - D. sA.-VALENTINE,
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
d. A. VALENTINE,
Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1910.
The Central Mercantile Company, Ap
pellee,


The Central Mercantile Company, APP
pellee,,
VS..
The Oklahoma State Bank Appellant,
Appeal from Reno County.
~ REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason: ).
1, Where the seller of goods. ships
them and makes draft upon the pur-
chaser with the bill of lading attached,
one who buys the draft and receives
payment Thereof from the sdrawee, is
not liable for the return of any portion
of the proceeds on account of any defect
in the quality of the gooos.
q This rule is not affected by the fact
that the draft was bought in reliance
upon a written guarantee of Its payment,
in eullichsthe bill Of lading was described
as Covering goods of a designated quail
8. Where. under the circumstances
stated, the draweea after paying the draft
to "a collecting agent. seeks to hold the
proeeeds1by garnishment as the property
of the drawer, the owner valves no rights
| by interyenting and asserting his title.
| All the Justices concurr1ng.s
A true COPY. .-
Attests D. A. VALENTINE,
| TSeal IL Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
~ No. 16,
Ira M. CODE. Appellant,


The couehlin Hardware Company. APP
Appeal from Shawnee County.
REVERSED.
L Ordinarily a Judgment on a plead
ing In favor of plaintiff cannot be or,
1 mere IN case s where ISSUE is joined
unless the general denial is overthrown
! by other statements in the answer. 2
believe q witness or accept his state
ments as conclusive merely because. there
Is no direct evidence contradicting his
8. The new civil code dispenses with
tons H1 to rulings Of the f ,ri aY Court
party is now entitled to have all rulings
hfc%fiing the gviIg and refusal ct int
notifying the court that he intends to have
the ruling reviewed or preserving an ex-
4. Ordinarily court is not warranted
| In submitting to a jury by instructions
abandoned by the party pleading it ana
in support of which no testimony is pre-
S. Neither the cashier of a national
bank nor member of the discount board
who owns majority of the stock. nor
device or fraud give away the funds OF
the bank nor use them to pay the indi-
| 6. If these Officers connrved together
| to pay the debt of the stakeholder to his
ooRs q tRe San IN favor of such
itor based on fictitious notes and the
| amount Of the credits is checked out by.
/ the creditor without anyone having made
a deposit in the bank to justify the entry
| of the credits and without the sanction
drew out G the money without giving giving any ny
consideration therefor is liable to the bank
him although he may have had no knowl-
edge of the fraud of the officers.
II All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D: A. VALENTINE.
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
Il e No. 1s Al.
The State of Kansas, ex rel, Plaintiff,
R. s. Paules, as e County Treasurer of
Marshall County, Defendant.
/ ]: Chapters, 21o and Us or the Laws OF
date the action taken in Counties Counties where
majority of those voting on the propo-
b had Y o t e ADOPT tss 81 is
and where high schools had been estab-
lished and maintained in accordance with
those Voting at the election as the law r
e. Chapters 2l0 and z5 of the Laws
of 1909 are not in conflict with section
II OF article of the constitution reclar,
) have a uniform operation and restrict
4 ing enactfnents of special laws, nor with
; section 10 of the same article relating to
Of Article Ii of the constitution for
suance of a law stating the object of the
same. The reasons urged against the va
lidity Of these statutes are not 4, sustained,
smith, j., and Porter, J.. concurring.
Graves. J., dissenting.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
II CSeall ~ Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13

Z No. 1928.
The State of Kansas, Appellee,
Emeline Hatch, Appellant.
Appeal from Reno County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Smith. j.
/. The evidence in this case, direct and
scircumstantial, was sufficient to justify
the submission of the case, under the
proper Instructions. to the jury.
. 2. Where physicians testify, as experts,
to the measurements and appearance of
a fetus found by them in the body of a
deceased woman and that from such meas
.urements and appearance they each had
an opinion as to the age of the fetus and
as to whether the woman at her death
was quick with child, it is competent to
allow such witnesses to testify each to his
opinion.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE.
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
COURT SYILABI
No. 16, 49,
e. w. Ames. Appellant,

II. w. AmeS, Appellant,
w. E. Freeman and H c. Gofdridge,
Appellees.
Appeal from Sunlher County.
AFFIRMED.
syllabus. BY the Court. Graves. J..
l. Where defendant Is served with a
void summons issued by a justice of the
peace, but at the time named in the
summons. appears before. the justice Of
the peace and surnbits himself to be
sworn as witness by the plaintiff and
restifies as to the merits of the case in
attorney for the plaintiff in the pres
ence of the justice, such conduct amounts
TO voluntary appearances TO the action
and is as binding as the valid service Of
a legal SUMMONS would have been; and
a Judgment entered upon such trial will
not be enjoined as void.
2. Where in such case an application
is made to the district court to enjoin the
collection of such a Judgment, and the
court finds that the conduct of the de-
fendant before the justice of the peace
amounted to a Voluntary appearance to
the action, and for that reason refuses
to allow. the Injunction such refusal Will
not be deemed erroneous,
All the justices concurr1ng.
A true COPY.
Attest: DA. VALENTINE.
ISeaL.1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 1884.

No. IL, 344.
James M. Rolens ct al, Appellants,
The City of Hutchinson, Appellee.
Appeal from Reno County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Johnston, c. J.
1. A city was granted an easement to
lay three or more twenty-four inch pipes
in a certain stripsof the grantor's land
from a creek to a canal for the passage
of water and the city subsequently find
ing it to be Inadequate for the purpose
undertook to dig and substitute an open
ditch twenty-five feet wide instead of the
drainage pipes without the consent of
the grantor and without condemnlng a
right-of-way. for the ditch. HEIDI that
the easement granted measured the
rights of the parties and that it did not
give the city the right to an open ditch
along the strip where the pipes were laid
and further that the additional servitude
cannot be imposed against the Will OF
the grantor without a concentration pro-
T.. The fact that the. open ditch might
result IN benefit to the grantor' land
does not warrant the city in making q
substantial change in the easement OF
in enlarging the use granted without the
consent of the grantor.'
g. The attempt to make and use the
open waterway in place of the drainage
pipes without obtaining the. consent OF
the grantor or the legal right TO do sc
may be Restrained by Injunction.
Ali the Justices concurring.
Attest: d A. VALENTINE.
ISeal. II. Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13
No. 16, 757.
John Bull ct al, Appellants.
w. R. Kelley ct al, Appellees.
Appeal from Gray County.


w. R. Kelley ct al, Appellees.
Appeal from Gray County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Burch, j.
s1.saSactions Ia of chapter 261 of the laws
OF 1889, vacating certain specified blocks
in the city of CiTnarron. and section 81
OF the same act, vacating the streets and
alleys within the boundaries OF vacated
blocks, when read together had the eff
feet of vacating solid portions of the
townsite more than five acres in extent.
Section of chapter 6 of the
laws of 1898, excluding from any town
site portions thereof more than five acres
in extent Heretofore vacated by the leg
islature, applied to such portions of the
city of Cimarron and operated to exclude
them from the corporate limits of the
city.
2. If the question were a new one sec
ton 1 of chapter 66 of the laws of 1893,
|; as applied to the facts of this case, would
doubtless be held to confer corporate
power by special act and consequently to
be unconstitutional. Since, however, the
section was held to be constitutional
in 1899 In the case of Allen VS.. Town Co.,
so Kan. S57, affirming Town Co. VS.. City
of Smith Center, Kan. App 252 the
.doctrine Of stare decisis applies and the
former decision will not be disturbed
All the justices concurring.
L A true copy.
|, Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-12-13

>. Nena H. Quinton. Appellant, -
& P. H. Adams, Appellee.
Appeal from Shawnee County,,
REVERSED. -.sfsa
Syllabus. BY the Court. Burch, J.
Under the facts stated m the opinion
it is held that a tract of land is not
occupied as a residence by the family
of the owner SO as to exempt it from
sale upon execution for his debts
Mason,J., Smith, J., Porter, j., Graves,
j., and Benson, J.. concurring.
Johnston, G. J., dissenting.
~ true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaLl Clerk Supreme Court.