State Ex Rel. Bradford v. Cross
| Decision Date | 10 March 1888 |
| Citation | 17 P. 190,38 Kan. 696 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, on the relation of S. B. Bradford, Attorney General, v. H. C. CROSS |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Lyon District Court.
ACTION by The State against H. C. Cross, to cancel a certain contract for the sale of 7,520 acres of State Normal School lands, at $ 3.50 per acre. The State demurred to the second count of defendant's answer. This demurrer was overruled at the April Term, 1886. The plaintiff brings the case here. The material facts appear in the opinion.
Judgment affirmed.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
Scott & Frith, and C. N. Sterry, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought by the state of Kansas, upon the relation of the attorney general, against H. C. Cross, on October 24, 1885, to cancel a certain contract for the sale of seven thousand five hundred and twenty acres of State Normal School lands, at three dollars and fifty cents per acre. The contract was executed July 19, 1884, between H. C. Cross and Van R. Holmes, the authorized agent for the sale of the lands. The written contract provided that it should not be in force or take effect until indorsed with the approval of the secretary of the board of regents of the State Normal School, duly authenticated with its seal. Upon the date of the contract, the same was approved and signed by H. D. Dickson, secretary of the board of regents, with the seal of the board thereto attached. The sum of two thousand six hundred and thirty-two dollars was paid by Cross; and the balance of the money, twenty-three thousand six hundred and eighty-eight dollars, with interest, was to be paid in installments. The state alleged that the land was sold without any authority of law; and further alleged that the land at the time of the sale was worth five dollars per acre, and that it could have been easily sold for that amount at that time; that the contract was induced by fraud and bribery upon the part of H. C. Cross.
Cross filed his answer, which contained a general denial; and alleged as a second count or defense, that "on July 19, 1884, in good faith and with the sanction and approval of the board of regents and the land committee thereof, he purchased the lands described in the petition, at the price fixed by the committee, to wit, three dollars and fifty cents per acre; and that thereupon Van R. Holmes, as agent to sell the lands, executed and delivered to him a written contract, duly signed by him and indorsed with the approval of the secretary of the board of regents, with the seal of the board thereto;" that he paid one-tenth of the purchase-money in cash, and agreed to pay the balance at his option, with interest at seven per cent. per annum, payable semi-annually; that the amount of the purchase-price paid in cash at the date of the contract, less commissions of the agent, was returned by the agent to the treasury of the state and the report of the sale and execution of the contract transmitted to the state auditor, and a copy of the same also delivered to the board of regents; that on January 1, 1885, in accordance with his contract, he paid into the treasury of the state interest amounting to seven hundred and forty-one dollars and fifty-eight cents; that on July 1, 1885, he paid into the treasury of the state the further sum of eight hundred and twenty-nine dollars and eight cents, as interest on the contract; that the board of regents, with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the purchase of the land and the execution and delivery of the contract, and the payment of the several sums of money into the state treasury, ratified and confirmed the purchase and sale, and also the contract. Cross also alleged that the state of Kansas had not returned or repaid, or offered to return or repay, the several sums of money paid by him upon his purchase and contract, or any part or portion thereof.
The state demurred to the second count or defense of the answer, upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute any defense whatever; the demurrer was overruled. The state excepted, and brings the case here.
The first claim made by the state is that the purchase and contract of July 19, 1884, are wholly void, because the sale of the lands at three dollars and fifty cents per acre is in contravention to chapter 189, Laws of 1872, which gave the board of directors of the State Normal School authority to sell the lands of the Normal School at a price not less than five dollars per acre. In 1877 an act was passed by the legislature to reorganize the State Normal School, and to provide for the sale of its land. (Laws of 1877, ch. 179.) Among other things it was provided therein that the Normal School should be governed by a board of regents, consisting of six persons. The fourth section of that act reads as follows:
"It shall be the duty of the board of regents to sell, or cause to be sold, under the provisions of chapter one hundred and eighty-nine of the Session Laws of eighteen hundred and seventy-two, the lands belonging to said institution, at not less than three dollars per acre; and no appropriation shall be made for this school in the future."
It is claimed upon the part of the state that this section is void, and in conflict with § 16, art. 2 of the constitution. We do not think the act contains more than one subject. At least, the objects of the act have relation and connections with each other; and therefore we think they are capable of being united in the same act. (Comm'rs of Cherokee Co. v. The State, 36 Kan. 337.)
The principal contention however is, that said § 4 is amendatory of chapter 189, Laws of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cummings v. Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City
...... consideration of the case of State v. Ingram, 164. Okl. 244, 23 P.2d 648, decided by this court in 1933. ...101, O.S.1931, supra, is applicable (see. State ex rel. Estill v. Board of Com'rs Pontotoc. County, 119 Okl. 215, 249 P. 394; ... by the briber upon the contract". State v. Cross......
-
Cunningham v. Smith
...... . . . . "Be. it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:. . . . . . "Section. 1. In lieu of the fees ... Constitution. State ex rel. v. Cross, 38 Kan. 696,. 700, 17 P. 190. But we do not predicate our ......
-
Dreiling v. Home State Life Ins. Co.
...case in accord with the qualified application of the status quo rule is Shields v. Meyer, 183 Kan. 111, 325 P.2d 29. In State ex rel. v. Cross, 38 Kan. 696, 17 P. 190, a situation was presented where the court found the status quo rule inapplicable for public policy The Court of Appeals of ......
-
State v. Gunzelman
...money paid as a bribe, the attitude of this court toward bribers generally is clearly reflected in the early case of State ex rel. Bradford v. Cross, 38 Kan. 696, 17 P. 190. That was an action by the state to cancel a contract for the sale of certain land purchased by the defendant from an ......