The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-05-12

Attest: 2; A. VALENTINE,
ISeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
W. G. and Ed. Lyman, Appei1ees,
Leon and Mary wederski, Appellants.
Appeal from Rawlins County
Syllabus. BY the Court Porter, J.
1. In an action on a promisscry note
purchase price of a header the defense was
a. breach OF warranty and failure of con
showed that the machine Was detective e and
failed to give satisfaction from the first
Il time it was tried, but that after using
ments on the original note, and after using
it the second season executed a renewal
note and continued to use the machine for
their possession. There was no evidence
what if any. damages the defendants sus-
tanned by reason of the defect in the ma
chine. Held, that a demurrer to the evil
The defendants had the election of one
chine and rescind thu contract or keep
the machine. affirm the contract and eth
er sue for damages for a breach Of war
ranty, if there was a warranty, when
sued for the purchase price recOup any
damages sustained by a breach of war
ranty.
Ali the Justices concurring.
true copy.
A zstss p pis1 A yy AI1a1a NE
No. 10, 1855.
S. NJ. Land, Administrator of the estate
of Samuel H. Simmons, deceased, APP
pellee,
st. Louis and San Francisco Railroad
Company, Appellant.
Appeal from Bourbon County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court. West, J.
1. Railroad companies in the operation
of their roads may rigbtfully assume that
their section men while at work upon or
times.
and ordinarily such companies owe to their
section men no duty to warn them of the
ployees are found to be in a place of dan
ger and it becomes apparent that they will
: 3 Ordinarily it is not, and under the
facts of this case, it was not negligence
senger train at speed of forty five miles
an hour.
required for the benefit of section men at
work upon or along the track or near
signals is not negligence as to such en-
ployees thus engaged; and this rule Is
train hed en going in the opposite direction on
one of the two tracks has left the other |
redPerng added 1ieanee On the
part of such employees to protect them |
Johnston, c. J., Burch, J., Mason, J., |
Porter, j., Marshall, J., and Dawson, j.,
e' Vest, j.. dissenting.
Attest: ID. A VALENTINE, 4
ISeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 19.443
Myrtle b. Springer, as Executrix, ETC., APP
pellee,
The Chicago Great Western Railroad Com
pany, Appellant.
Appeal from LeavenwOrth County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Mason, j. 1
l. Where the jury in a personal injury
case are asked to state in what respect the |
defendant was negligent, and In answer |
refer only to single matter, this does not
existence of which they had already speci- |
fically found. being relied upon to support
verdict for the plaint1ff.
p Where an automobile cOllides with
the rear end of a freight train, and is push
ed for a considerable distance along the |
being run over and killed, the railroad |
company is liable for the death, notwith
standing any negligence of the decedent
prior to the collision, if its employees could
by, exercising reasonable care, after be-
coming aware of the danger, have stopped
the train before the overturning of the
automobile
All the justices concurring.
A true copy -
Attest: d. A VALENTINE,
TSealI Clerk of Supreme Court
No 19,41S.
Virginia Lee Byerly, Appellant,
Robert Eadie, ct al, AppelIees.
Appeal from Greeley County.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Syllabus By the Court Porter, J. |
L. Probate courts are courts of limited
and cannot determine ques-
lions Of title 80 as to conclude persons