The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-05-18
No. 21,549.
Frank H. Burnett, ct al, Appellants

Frank H. Burnett, ct al, Appellants.
a + s Tf from njlf kA Pgsnfs.
Syllabus BY the Court. West J.
1. The bulk sales act, chapter 1863 of the
Laws of 1915. is constitutional exercise
Of police power and is valid under both
the state and federal constitutions. :.
2. Its provision Furnishing those who
disobey its mandates does not conflict with
the constitutional inhibition against i'm
prisonment for debt except in case of
g. The term Creditors as used in the
act is not confined to those who have sold
merchandise to the vender but covers
4 The sale having been made in bulk
with entire disregard of the statute, the
Judgment creditor to subject the property
creditor is, not restricted to the remedies
OF attachment, garnishment or levy of
8. The petition states cause of action
and it was error to sustain the demurrer
thereto.
Ali the justices coneurrins.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
(Seal.) Clerk Supreme Court.
No. p, 467.
Edward j. Huston. ct al, Appellees,
ef sPssa " rs esH Vi A eeSSsns
(D1vlS1On NO. IL
AFFIRMED.
| Sylla bus BY the Court. Burch. J.
l. receiver may be appointed By the
district court for an oil and gas lease of
land beyond the jurisdiction, when the in
strument merely creates an incorporeal
nrrf tan In any event when the
interested parties.
. Unless an ordinary partnership has
tween cotenants of an oil and gas lease
may exist only while they actually engage
| 5. The evidence considered. and held, a
receiver was properly appointed for an Oil
and gas lease. although the interested
parties were merely cotenants.
| All the Justices concurring..
| true copy.
| Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
| (Seal3 Clerk Supreme Court.
/ No. 214s1.
! State of Kansas eX REL, S. NJ. Brewster,
| Acknowledgement, Plaintiff
! Amusement Syndicate Company, and The
Sherman Elliott Film Corporation, De-
PENDANTS.
Original Proceeding in Mandamus.
WRIT ALLOWED.
Syllabus. By the Court. West, j.
| 1. The Kansas Board of Review when an
proving a motion picture film does SO sub
ject to subsequent reeall for re-examina-
2. Upon such recall a duty of the pro-
ducsr arises to return the film for re
examination. the performance of which
8. The evidence examined and found not
to raise the presumption that in the work of
| such re-examipation the members of the
/ Johnston, c.. j.. Burch, J., Mason. J.,
West, J., and Dawson, J., dissenting.
Attest: D. A, VALENTINE.
| (SealD Clerk Supreme Court
No. 20,04s
The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway
| Company, Appellee,
VS..
The Missouri Pacific Railway Company,
I - Appellant
| Appeal from Coffey County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court Bureb J.
| 1. A contract between the plaintiff and
the defendant relating to the erection op-
Grafton, and function of a gate at a grade
i crossing of their railroads at a station
and the operation of trains over the cross
ing, provided that the normal position of
| the gate was to be across the plaintiffs
track, the purpose being to block the
plaintiffs track and allow the defendant
train to run over the crossing without
| stopping, except. when the gates were
turned across the DEFENDANTS track. In
that event the defeHdant's trains were
to respect the signal and stop. Held
the gate might properly be turned in favor
of one of the plaintiffs trains after it ar
rived at the crossing, and against an on
coming train of the defendant, provided
sufficient distance were allowed to give