The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-04-12

-, .,...,@ ,-.- NbHl
---------~----~~-->---~-~--
Published in The Topeka State Journal.
April L. 1851
SUPREME COURT SYLLABI
No. 21.4T9
Harold Minturn. Minor BY his next
friend and mother. Martha Minturn, APP
pellee.
The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Com
pany, Appellant.
Appeal from Wyandotte County.
division No. ID
AFFIRMED
Syllabus the Court West J.
The action OF --iinor by his next friend
TO recover under the workmen Compensa-
ton act is not barred because the written
claim for compensation served
within three months from the date of the
injury-no guardian having been appointed.
q 1904. Gen. Stat. 1870
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: y. A. VALENTINE.
tSeaL) Clerk Supreme Court
No. 21.69.
The State of Kansas, Appellee,
Alberry Peterson, Appellant
Appeal from Douglas County.
AFFIRMED
Syllabus. by the Court Marshall J.
In an argument % the jury III criminal
action. it is error Cor the county attorney
to refer to the fact that the defendants wife
| did not testify; but, before Judgment of
conviction will be -eversed. 1t must appear
that some substantial right of the defend
All the Justices coneurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d: a. VALENTINE.
sSeal) Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1,47s.
Stella kunz, Appellant,
w H. Allen and Charles H. Bayne. partners
as Allen X Bayne. Appeilees.
Appeal from wyandotte County
division No 81
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Porter. j.
The exhibition in moving picture the
alter of the photograph of person taken
without her consent and for the purpose of
exploiting the publishers business. is Il
Violation si.,L of the right Of privacy and en-
ciai damage
All the justices concurring
true copy.
Attest II. A. VALENTINE,
lSe:L) Clerk Supreme Court
No. II. 45o
A. W. Mentze. Appellant.
+. J. Rice. Appellee.
Appeal from Harper County.
I j.
A demurrer was sustained to the plain
tiffs evidence which entitled him to go
All the justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: ID. A, VALENTINE
(Seal-) Clerk Supreme Court
No. II .46c.
A Il. Buxton, Appellee,
/
G.. i. j. CoIver Appellant
Appeal from Edwards County.
NJ
Syllabus. by the Court. Johnston. C. J
l. Correspondence between a landowner
and broker by letters and kilograms re-
lating to finding a pure haser for land al
to the commission to be paid is held to
f3nstitute u, oind,ng contract between
contract is question of law for the court
= The contract. being complete and
unambiguous and nqving provided for the
payment of specified commission II a
purchaser of land was procured by the
broker on stipulated terms without any
limitations as to the person to whom thu
sale might be made, must be regardc
az a complete expression of the entire
! agreement to commission and ID cannot
be contradicted. added to modified by
parol evidence of prior oral agreement
be paid II sale was made to par,icu-
lar person.
All the Justices concurring.
\ true copy.
Attest: ID. A. VALENTINE.
tSeal) Clerk Supreme Court.
No. II .4Ge
John c. Taylor and Adelia A. Taylor. both
minors. by Alice Taylor. their Mothe -
Guardian and next friend: and Charity
Ross Taylor. A minor, by Anna Ross His
Grandmother and next friend. Appellees.
The Farmers & Bankers Life Insurance
Company. A Corporation. Appellant.
Appeal from Cloud County
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. i:y the Court West. j.
/. The defendant insurance company ON
receipt from an agent Of an application
for policy and a note for the first years
premium returned the note with policy
to the agent. stating that IT had been I'M
able to get satisfactory references on the
However. we are enclosing this policy
herewith. although You understand Of
course that the collateral which hold
will not. in view of the references which
We have. guarantee the payment Of this
premium. and the delivering of this policy
under the circumstances to the insured will
be at your own risk
The agent to whose order the note
made payable deeming the note good. de-
iivrred the policy. Held. that this left the
company in the attitude of relying ON the
agent the ultimate paymaster and 1t can
| not defeat an action on the policy because
| the insured did not pay the note
loose use II the word collateral"
and peculiar method of bookkeeping held
not to affect seriously materially the
| real question involved.
3. Certain rulings on evidence examined
| and held not to be substantially preiudicai.
4. The refusal to set aside certain find
! ings of fact was hot error
). The verdict and Judgment being for
I r,ei,t is modified conform to the terms
/ Of the policy anil thus modified the judg-
ment is affirmed.
1 Al the Justices concurring-
! Attest: H. A. VALENTINE.
| tSeaI-l Clerk Supreme Court
. Continued on next page.D