The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-10-12
LEGAL,

No. 20, 143.
w F. Mccullough, doing business as The
mccullough Grain Company, Appellee
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company.
Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
division No. L.
REVERSED
syllabus. By the Court. Mason, J.
l. The state courts have jurisdiction of
an action against a carrier for damages
occassioned by the misrouting of an in
terstate shipment by which privilege of
milling in transit was lost, which would
have been available if the shipping direc-
lions had been followed.
z In an action against an initial carrier
Tor mfsrouting, a statement made at the
that If ala tSe t aaos
but denied the loss claimed by the plain
TIFF, d1spenses with the necessity Of proof
that the defendant was in fault, even if
the situation is such that it was not liable
for the misconduct of a connecting carrier.
3. Where u shipper of grain is required
price because milling in transit privi
lege was lost through misroutfng, he Is
entitled to recover the amount of his loss
from the carrier in fault.
4. The evidence held sufficient to sup
port a finding that privilege of milling
in transit would have been exercised if
it had been available.
8. Language of a carriers tariff giving
a privilege of milling in transit subject
refer to conditions on which like privileges
had been granted in preceding portions of
the tariff, as well as to whose stated in
the same paragraph.
8. Damages for the loss of the privilege
of milling in transit through misrouting
can not be recovered where the privilege
was available only where a reference to it
was noted on the shipping order and bill
of lading, and no such notation was made.
All the Justices concurring-
true copy.
Attest: n. A VALENTINE,
ISeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court
No. 20.1s3
The Hall Lithographing Company, a cor
poration, Appellant,
J. E. Crist ct al, Appellees.
Appeal from Finney County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court Dawson, ].
All who participated in a project to
for the debts thereby incurred when the
project is abandoned before completion,
following Walton VS.. Oliver, 40 Kan. 107,
121 Pac. $40. '-''' " -'''' '''
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
IseaLl Clerk Su2reme Court
No. 2o319
The Harvester Building Company,
Appellee,
Commissioners of the County of Saline,
ct a., Appellants.
Appeal from Saline County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Mason, J.
The statute providing that no person
shall be required to list for taxation any
portion of the capital stock of certain cor
porations, but that their agents shall list
1.-THE full amount of stock paid in and
remaining capital stock" which shall
be taxed at its true value, as other per
sonal property, a deduction being first
made of the amount of stock invested in
specific property which is given to the
SCISSORS for taxation, is interpreted to mean
that taxes are to be paid upon the actual
value of the shares of stock outstanding,
less the amounts assessed against specific
property, and that this rule applies even
where the corporation is engaged in no
other business than in renting real estate
which it has procured by the expenditure
of the whole amount paid in by stock
holders, and the stock is appraised at a
greater value than the realty.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
ISealj Clerk Supreme Court.