The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-03-14


that the doubtful instruction may and
should be so construed as to properly
direct the jury. the case will not be re-
ton.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1851
The Bank of Wilbur, Appellant,
J. A. Freeburg, Appellee
Appeal from Republic County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Smith. J.
1. Where the circumstances surround
ing the transfer of a note, both before
and after the transfer, indicate that the
transfer was made for the purpose only
defeat the defenses which might be set
up against the note in an action there
on by the payee jury s ana the Re court
ing that there was, in fact, no bona fide
sale and transfer of the note, although
the transferee to the holder and that the
transferee had no notice of any infirm1ty
or defense against the note; The jury
and the court have the right to believe
the circumstantial evidence and to dis
believe the direct evidence:
All the Justices concuTrlng.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaLJ Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1871.
Alice Stratton. as Administrators of the
Estate of George Stratton. Deceased.
Appellee,
c. B. Rotrock, Appellant.
Appeal from Ottawa County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus BY the Court Smith. j.
1. According to the findings of fact in
this case, it was clearly the intention or
both Stratton and Rotrock that STRAIT
ton took the deed to the land In question
as security for the repayment of the pur-
chase price of the land, with interest,
from Rotrock to him. Held, such deed
was a mortgage.
as a mortgage, neither the failure of Rot
rock to pay the debt nor any act or in
tent OF the absence
of subsequent superseding contract.
An the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
John Baker. Revived in the Name of
Mary A. Baker and e. F. Baker,
Mary H. snayely, William weisiger'
Appellee, S. c. Thompson, Appellant,
Appeal from Finney County.
AFFIRMED.
/. Under the circumstances of this case
the tb fa dsed aseeS IN exc
crow or from its actual delivery to the
grantee. depends upon which. view will
2 A purchaser contending that a deed
should relate back to the time 1t is
placed IN has Ins rebs hat
he is otherwise unable to protect him
self {, from tSs tn less; conourrine.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
ISeall Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1882
w. F. DENLY and H. o. Peck, Partners as
Dendy & Peck, Appellees.
Paul. Paul Russell Russ. Ii, appellant ,,,
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Porter. ].
Appellants sued on the covenants of war
f FORMER s. suit on the same cause of action
| it was adjudged that they could not
| maintain an action at that time because
| other litigation terminated. Held ID
| that while they were prevented from
mitations was e toIied Cd that an ob5ec-
| ton to any testimony under counter
claim for damages' expenses ana odt aororney
properly sustained, there being no claim
| that the former action was not prosecuted
the breach of the agreement to forbear
! being barred by the statute of limita-
tons.
| All the Justices concurring.
A true copy
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
TSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court
:. No. 16,946
The State of Kansas ex rel, Appellee,
| VS..
The State Bank of Circleville, Appellant.
Appeal from jackson County.
AFFIRMED.
| Syllabus BY the Court. Burch. ].
1. When a district court in a suit
brought by the state for that purpose
appoints receiver to wind up the affairs
| of a banking corporation it thereby Sc
cures to itself full jurisdiction to adjust
all rights interests. claims and demands
legal or equitable, relating to the bank s
estate or growing out of its administra-
ton, and to control. at its discretion. all
+, controversies affecting the subject mat
ter of the receivership.
2. In the exercise of the jurisdiction
stated the court may refuse to allow a
claim upon the assets in its custody to
be Iitigated in an independent action and
may itself adjust the matter in pro-
1 ceeding in the receivership suit !.
1 a. ~oer Fif award a trial bv fury as to