The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1914-07-11
No. Is, $50.
c. A. Poinsett. Appellant.

No. 16, S69..
G. A. Poinsett.. Appellant.
w
Appeal from Wyandotte County.)
Division No. 3
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Mason. J.
In the circumstances stated in the opin-
ion an instruction allowing certain de-
is held not to have been pre5udicial where
it had been given at a former trial OF
the case six months before, 30 that the
defendant was advised OF the interpreta-
ton placed on the pleadings by the court.
All the justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1924.
The State OF Kansas, Appellee,
vs..
airy " King, Appellant
OPINION DENYING A REHEARING.
Syllabus. By the Court. Burch. J
l. The portion of a charge contained in
q complaint and warrant for persistent
violation Of the prohtbitory law which
states that the accused sold intoxicating
L litations sufficiently specifies the ma
ture of that element of tho accusation
and authorizes the holding of a prelimi-
nary examination.
.. If preliminary examination be
waived it is not necessary that the ex-
amintng magistrate find that any par
llCuidf lEanSaCllOn OF sale mas occurred
or that there il probable cause to believe
the accused guilty of any particular
transaction of sale in order to hold the
&C used for trial
examination the magistrate makes the
usual findings and holds the accused, an
information may be filed which charges
the offense described In the warrant with
out the specification of any particular
transaction of SALE and the accused may
be placed on trial for such ofrense.
All of the Justices concurrlng.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE.
ISeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1873.
Carrie Mary Hawkins, Appellant.
Stina Hansen ct al. Appellees.
OPINION DENYING REHEARING.
Syllabus. BY the Court: Porter. j.
l. There are no technical words to dis
tinguished between conditions precedent
and conditions subsequent; whether they
are one or the other depends upon the
intent of the person creating the condi-
ton. II the thing to be done does not
necessarily precede the vesting Of the
estate in the grantee, but may accompany
or follow 1t. and may as well be done
after as before the vesting of the estate.
the condition is subsequent.
2. A will contained the following pro-
vision:
ITO Andrew Hansen my son in law who
for some time past has been taking care
of myself and wife 1 give will and be-
queath after the death OF myself and 49,.
my wife all our property herein de-
scribed. Provided he shall take as
he has heretofore taken good kind and
loving care of us provided us with all
necessaries of every kind and nature dur
ing the remainder of our lives.''
HELD. that the performance Of the
condition does not necessarily precede
the vesting of tue estate but may accom-
pany or follow it, and it Is therefore a
condition subsequent.
3. Upon the facts stated in the opin-
Torrance of the condition. an exact COM
pliance having been prevented by the
voluntary act of the person for whose
benefit the condition was imposed.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaL] Clerk Supreme Court
o. B. Cleveland, Appellant,
Va
H. l.. Mills, ct al, Appellees
Appeal from Harper County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Smith. J.
l. Where a plaintiff sets forth writ
ten contract in his petition and seeks a
remedy only under the provisions there
of, and the defendant pleads only by an
inverted denial, the only proper issue
Is whether the plaintiff. has 50 performed
the conditions of the written contract as
to entitle him to recover.
2. Where, however on the trial Of the
action the defendant, without any proper
objection by the plaintiff. produces evil
dence that Immediately after the execu-
ton of the written contract the parties
made an oral agreement substantially
different from the written contract and