Homer Hoch

This case arose from a garnishment proceeding following a $5,000 tort judgment against employee Glen Striplin for negligently injuring a minor plaintiff while driving a delivery truck. The plaintiff sought to collect from the Employers Liability Assurance Corporation under a policy issued to Derby Oil Company, the truck's owner. The trial court submitted to a jury the questions of whether the insurer had defended Striplin without reserving rights (thereby waiving any noncoverage defense) and whether Striplin had permission to drive at the time of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported waiver and that the trial court had discretion to submit factual issues to the jury under the pleadings. The court rejected the insurer's arguments that the matter was purely contractual or should have been decided by the court alone.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether an alimony judgment payable in installments could be revived by the wife's estate administrator after her death for the unpaid amount. The court affirmed the revival of the $2,680 unpaid balance, ruling that under Kansas statutes, such judgments are final and treated like other money judgments subject to revivor without exception for alimony. The reasoning emphasized that the fixed-sum alimony award, based on stipulation and not modifiable, survives death, distinguishing it from ongoing support obligations, and prior cases supported treating it as assignable and enforceable post-death.

family lawprocedure

This case involved an action by heirs and executors of an estate to recover $500 on a surety bond that secured a contract for the lease and purchase of a flour mill. The buyer took possession, paid some rent, but made no purchase payments, then abandoned the property, leading plaintiffs to sue after declaring default. The court held that the contract's provision for $500 upon default of any term constituted enforceable liquidated damages rather than a penalty, that the plaintiffs as heirs and assignees were proper parties to bring suit on the bond payable to the estate representatives, and that a preliminary memorandum had been superseded by the later comprehensive contract approved by the probate court. It affirmed judgment for the plaintiffs, reasoning that the buyer's abandonment and election to terminate constituted breach triggering the bond, with unpaid rent supporting the claim even before the first purchase installment was due.

propertybusiness & regulatory