Hardten v. State

• Decision Date: 28 November 1884
• Citation: 5 P. 212,32 Kan. 637
• Parties: WILLIAM A. HARDTEN AND JULIA ANNIE HARDTEN v. THE STATE OF KANSAS
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

5 P. 212

32 Kan. 637

WILLIAM A. HARDTEN AND JULIA ANNIE HARDTEN v. THE STATE OF KANSAS

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 28, 1884

Error from Pottawatomie District Court.

CIVIL action brought by the county attorney of Pottawatomie county in the name of The State of Kansas, against William A Hardten and wife, to enforce an alleged lien on certain real estate. Trial by the court at the April Term, 1884, when the court found that the plaintiff has and is entitled to its lien for the sum of $ 195.30 on the premises described in the petition, and that said lien ought to be enforced. The court adjudged that--

"The plaintiff has its said lien, and that the same be enforced as prayed in the petition; that the said lot 9, in block 17, in the city of St. Marys, in Pottawatomie county, state of Kansas, be appraised and sold as upon execution by the sheriff of said county, and that the proceeds be applied to the payment, first, of the costs in this action, and second to the payment of the said sum of $ 195.30, the amount of the said lien, and that the clerk of this court issue an order of sale thereof."

This judgment defendants bring here for review. The opinion states the material facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Case & Curtis, and D. V. Sprague, for appellants.

R. S. Hick, county attorney, for The State.

VALENTINE J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

VALENTINE, J.:

This was a civil action brought by the county attorney of Pottawatomie county, in the name of the state of Kansas against William A. Hardten and Julia Annie Hardten, to enforce an alleged lien upon certain real estate. The alleged lien is claimed to have arisen as follows: Julia Annie Hardten owned the real estate upon which it is claimed the lien exists. William A. Hardten is, and was during the occurrence of all the transactions hereafter mentioned, her husband and her duly-authorized agent for the management and control of said real estate, and for leasing the same. He leased the same to Joel Oldham for the purpose that intoxicating liquors might be sold and bartered thereon contrary to the prohibitory liquor law of 1881, and afterward such liquors were in fact so sold and bartered by Oldham on the premises. Afterward, Oldham was prosecuted therefor in a criminal action, and was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 100, and to pay the costs of the prosecution, amounting to $ 95.30--total, $ 195.30. Hardten, as before stated, had full knowledge of the purpose for which the premises were leased and used, but his wife, Mrs. Hardten, "had no actual, personal notice or knowledge of the use that was to be made by said Oldham of said premises." The statute under which this action was brought and prosecuted, reads as follows:

"SEC. 18. All fines and costs assessed against any person or persons, for any violation of this act, shall be a lien upon the real estate of such person or persons until paid; and in case any person or persons shall let or lease any building or premises, and shall knowingly suffer the same to be used and occupied for the sale of intoxicating liquor contrary to the provisions of this act, the premises so leased and occupied shall be subject to a lien for, and may be sold to pay all fines and costs assessed against any such occupant for any violation of this act; and such liens may be enforced by civil action in any court having jurisdiction: Provided, That the person against whom such fines and costs are assessed shall be committed to the jail of the county until such fines and costs are paid." (Laws of 1881, ch. 128, § 18.)

The plaintiffs in error, defendants below, claim that this statute is unconstitutional and void, for the reason that it contravenes § 16, article 2 of the constitution; but we perceive no good reason for holding it unconstitutional or void. We think it is valid.

The plaintiffs in error, defendants below, also claim that this statute does not apply to Mrs. Hardten, because she "had no actual personal notice or knowledge of the use that...