The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-01-13

Oy an actual change of possession IN or
chanee of possession must be Of such
character as to be open to observation.
The fact that the mortgaged cnatteis
a prior mortgage. who esrees to hold
possession also for the benefit Of the
the necessity Of a record. as against
creditors.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
tSeal] Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1s51l.
Hester 8. Romary, Appellee.
J. F. Romary and Bernice Romary. Ap-
Appeal fro Re"e cofrey County.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Benson. J.
of an eighty acre tract ana 4 team to
each of his children as they respectively
attained to majority. with the understands
mor.er that they should have the title g
the fathers death. It was also part OF
she ssna plan hat ss Of
died. The older children occupied and i'm
youngest son was stiil a minor when his
father died. family settlement was
then agreed upon to carry out the original
ferred on the minor that he might enter
into the agreement. The CONS and dough-
f ter W S 9o
each of the Older ones the tract occupied
by him or her respectively. and made
devisfng the homestead to the youngest
son at her death upon his agreement to
care for her on the farm while she lived.
fully carried out until the youngest SON
married. when unhappy differences arose.
mother and the sons wife, and also be-
tween +he mother and son in which harsh
and reproAchful language was used by
of the mother from the homestead. In .
suit by, the mother against the son to set
aside the contract, which was verbal and
his alle@ed default. and the charge that
because Of the untindness Of the son ana
him. the district court found seneraIy Won for
the mother Judgment was entered quiet
ing her title to the homestead and for the
recovery or one-haf the crops raised after
Il "nsn s sSs Pa Sssr ss ss e t
H the ana sos
tons caused by the death Of the mother,
the agreement should be specifically per-
title of the homestead in the son upon his
paving one-haff the value of the crops. as
before ad1udged in lieu Of her support
also me expensss q her fune@.i. and that hat
ingiv. ""
All the justices concurring.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE
tSeaLI Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1883.
Inc state OF Kansas ex rel, Appellant,
Hattie NJ. Cline, Administrators "a ct al.
Appellees.
Appeal from Montsomery County.
Syllabus Ev the Cor..
Chapter 24s Of the Laws of 1903. COM
monty called the Inheritance tax law. does
not yGlate the clause in the bin Of rights
stituted for the equal protection ar q bene-
mt o. the people. nor does 1t violate the
formity in the operation Of General ,a Tn,-
and uniformity and equality in the rate Of
assessment sssessnre and taxation. The act is
An the Justices concurring
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE.
tSsaIJ Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1881.
John 6. Chilson, Appellant
Lula A. Rogers. ct al. Appellees.
Appeal from Shawnee County
division No. ~
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. johnston. r. j.
written consent that his wife might
devise or bequeath away from him more
and fairly executed by the husband n
strict compliance with the statute AM
thortzing such consent after reading the
his wife intended to make Of her proncr.
ty. Later. and before the death OF hia
wife. he gave her written notice that he
had revoked the consent previously given
ana AFTER her death he ella med that he
was entitled to one-half Of the propertv
OF which she died possessed, Held thst
the husband did not have the right to
entitled to share of his wife's properfv
All the Justices concurrinx
$Attest: D: A. VALENTINE.
les0u Clerk Supreme Court
No 1887.
Bert McCl'ntock, Appellee
Morris Pyle Appellant.
Appeal from CofYev County.
AFFIRMED
SyIlah us. Ry the Court M..on =
Where the fury are told that in order
to be entitled to a commiss' on a real
curing cause OF a sale IT is not materts,
have been The efficient" and sproxi-
An the justices concurr,ne
A trs'e copy.
Attest: =: A. VALENTINE
tSeaLJ Clerk Supreme Court.
The Scott City Northern Railroad Com.
pany, Appellee,
VS..
J. H. Wilkinson. Appellant.
Appeal from Logan County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus g.. the Court Masnn
/. It in defense to . note efvsn II
aid in the construction of a railroad thai
the road was built by another Company
than that specified in the contract where |
nothing IN the agreement itself or ii
the surround ng circumstances indicate
that II made any difference to the siRner
by what company the road was built.
2. A contract by q railroad company in
OF an aid note. to butia 4
road to q point ON another railroad ON ~
before stated day. may be REGARDED Al
performed. % g e a.
khorise q recovery on the note. although