The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-02-15
No. 5000.
Joseph A. Hudson, ct al AnneIys.

'osepn A Hudson, ct al, AppelIees,
VS..
Appeal from Chautau9pa COUNTY
c,,,,,L AFFIRMED.
i' n, fh,s By BY the Court. Burch ].
JustiIles a finding that a man who toois
3 t Tax sale certificate and tax deed o OF
70 pay taxes did SO as the aSs,t ii e'sd
LOT the benefit and protection of the
that f, n wno vas insane; and that he took
lakes Tax on the one hand and of protectinss
ms advancement on the other.
in the 5 sue a case the agency of the grantee
ms heirs claiming title by his conduct
sarv y fba ffirbc a aS 1t is not neces-
appointed as agent; he NAV have in4ery
vened voluntarily and may have T used sd' his
owner, who because of her INSANITY nit i Was
itnhcapable Of expressing recognition of
accept s and a %nle t she s was alive may
s. The statutes require the county treas
e al, 70 Keep just and true account of
ever he receives any tax to give ra
celpt therefor. They do not prescribe
me IIe,d KINDS of account books he shall keep.
venlent for the purpose will suffice. and
any such book officially adopted and
law. Held further, that q e't ter OF inc
STUB STUB b book x which is q part of the rec
shows payments of taxes. the an a,, WnlGn
Of such payments, the years for which
I In We're made and the persons for
admissible in evidence as a booi< reo,.ired
by law to be kept.
paragraph / inherit no betfer tifIa 70 TN IN
ne possessed. which is a naked legal title
WI with hen for taxes; and such title will
interest of the principal. subject only to
S. The heirs of the principal referred TO
brought suit against the heirs IF the ts AZ
deed holder for possession and partition
claiming the tax deed was void. A vendee
claim deed and guardians deed. sub
1ect to the pending suit which he agreed
than his vendors enjoyed and was not
an innocent purchaser under the record
6. After the vendee purchased he vss
substituted for his vendors in the pend
Ing suit. The plaintiffs then enlarged
tax deed acted as the agent of the inc inc
sane IanG owner; Held, the plaintiffs
We're were not estopped in equity from intro
depending on ali the circum a5 10 Iei ef
error the Judgment of the I trial u c c1eaf
denying its effectiveness will not be dis
8. Under the circumstances of this case
II is held that neither equity nor pub
lie policy absolutely forbade the court
tion. and the substituted defendant. who
purchased after the suit was commenced
with full knowledge of its pendencv ana
purpose, and under an agreement to de-
fend 1t, has no special standing in equity
to complain that plaintiffs were diIatory
In starting proceedings or that the cansa
was heard and decided on its merits
Ali the justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Suprerne CsoH.t
No. 1889
RrnfhaFc q ~
vs..
Inc perfection Block Machine Connanv
Corporation. Appellant.
Appeal from F1nney County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Renso,
L Expenditures necessarily madc jn
afin ant Of or in preparations for.
default is made or fulfillment nreven4 III
by the other party, are usually recoSs-
z Where the rescission of contract
mas been lawfully made, the partv 1ot
IN fault may recover the considerat ion
by him in performing the condifion mace as
the agreement on his part VI
O. In an action for the rescission 90 .
contract and for damages incident
fCCH