The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-07-17
LEGAL

pellant,
The United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Company, Appellee.
Appeal from Republic County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus By the Court. Burch, J.
1. The motion to make definite and GER
tain lies only when the pleadings attacked
is so indefinite and uncertain that the ma
parent CIV Code, sec. I2a.1 This does
not mean indefinite and uncertain accord
the common law system of pleading. and
pleading is sufficient against the mo-
ton which fairly apprises the adversary
of what the claim or defense is.
2. The defendant gave a bond to in
demnify the plaintiff against loss resulting
The bond contained the following provi-
to the Surety hereunder unless, in the
event of any default on the part OF the
Principal in the performance of any of
said contract, the Obligee shall promptly
and in any event not later than thirty
days after knowledge of such default de-
liver to the Surety at its office in the City
of Baltimore, written notice thereof, with a
statement of the principal facts showing
such default and the date thereof; nor
unless the said Obligee shall deliver writ
ten notice to the Surety at its office afore-
said, and the consent of the Surety there
to obtained, before making to the Principal
Contract di herein refePreT e LOT uhaer Tue
1t is held that the notices provided for
were intended to afford the insurer an OPP
should it need and should it be able to
do SO. Failure to give the notices did not
loss resulted as a direct consequence and
then only to the extent of the loss, which
prove.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
lSeall Clerk Supreme Court
No 1864.
A. L. Noble and J. n. Tincher, Partners
as Noble & Tineher, Appellees,
]. f. Fisher, Appellant.
Appeal from Barber County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Porter j.
A father sued upon an oral contract
employing attorneys to defend his son in
criminal action. They testified that he had
employed them. He denied that he bad
made any. contract with them and offered
them. The court instructed that before the
plaintiffs could recover they must prove by
were employed by the defendant to render
the services that there must have been
held for the debt of his son. HELD. that
there was no error in refusing to give an
instruction setting out in substance the
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
lSeaI1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 1861.
o. W. Sparks, Appellant,
Ralph E. Martin, as Sheriff of cherokee
County, Kansas, and The J. NJ. Cooper
Mercantile & Mining Company, n corpo-
ration, Appellees.
Appeal from Cherokee County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Porter J.
l. In suit to enjoin an execution the
validity of the Judgment turned upon the
question of fact whether some five years
before a previous execution was issued on
the 9TH day of March, 1905, prior to the
time the judgment would have become dor
mant The execution was dated in the
1905 The appearance docket, the execu-
ton docket and the endorsement on the
back of the execution showed that it was
issued March 5, 1908. The body of the exc
cution recited that it returnable May
4, 1908, and the sheriff's return stated
that he received it March 5, 1905 HELD,
that the evidence sustained the finding that
the execution issued March 5, 1905
office of the clerk of the district court
showing the issuance of an execution can
not be impeached by testimony of wit
ness that in a conversation with the dep
uty clerk of the district court subsequent
to the date when the judgment would
have become dormant the clerk stated to
him that no execution on the Judgment
had issued.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE.
[Seal.1 Clerk of Supreme Court