uniform rule in Kansas

1942Thus, in Judd v. Driver, 1 Kan. 455, 464 , it was said: “It is a uniform rule of construction that one part of a statute should be construed by other parts of the same statute so that, if possible, no clause or part shall be treated as superfluous, and especially when the two are parts of the same section.” In Bridge Company v. K.

1941Thus, in Judd v. Driver, 1 Kan. 455, 464 , it was said: “It is a uniform rule of construction that one part of a statute should be construed by other parts of the same statute so that, if possible, no clause or part shall be treated as superfluous, and especially when the two are parts of the same section.” In Bridge Company v. K.

2001See Community Antenna TV of Wichita, Inc., v. City of Wichita, 205 Kan. 537, 543 , 471 P.2d 360 (1970) (“ordinance puts it in the power of the city commission to grant or refuse a franchise at will”); Hudson Properties, Inc., v. City of Westwood, 181 Kan. 320, 321 , 310 P.2d 936 (1957) (ordinance failed to establish a uniform standard for application in that governing body was final arbiter of property rights).

2001See Community Antenna TV of Wichita, Inc., v. City of Wichita, 205 Kan. 537, 543 , 471 P.2d 360 (1970) (“ordinance puts it in the power of the city commission to grant or refuse a franchise at will”); Hudson Properties, Inc., v. City of Westwood, 181 Kan. 320, 321 , 310 P.2d 936 (1957) (ordinance failed to establish a uniform standard for application in that governing body was final arbiter of property rights).

1923In The State, ex rel., v. Mitchell, 50 Kan. 289 , 33 Pac. 104 , it was stated; “It is a uniform rule of construction that one part of a statute should be construed by other parts of the same statute so that, if possible, no clause or part thereof shall be treated as superfluous, and this rule must especially be followed when the two are parts of the same section.” (Syl.) The language of the proviso which eliminates part of the property in the taxing district from consideration, when considering the sufficiency of the protest, is in conflict with the language in the body of the statute providin

1923“It is a uniform rule of construction that one part of a statute should be construed by other parts of the same statute, so that, if possible, no clause or part thereof shall be treated as superfluous, and this rule must especially be followed when the two are parts of the same section.” (The State, ex rel., v. Mitchell, 50 Kan. 289 , syl. ¶ 1, 33 Pac. 104 ; McCreedy v. City of Fort Scott, 113 Kan. 753 .) The statute also provides that “in case of a vacancy in the office of any commissioner, the governor shall appoint his successor to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.” There is substant

1987The appellate court first recognized that the exclusion of polygraph evidence is “essentially the uniform rule throughout the country.” 47 Ohio App. 2d at 193 .

1982An express direction to impose a tax on all property by a uniform rule does not necessarily exclude taxation upon that which is not property, or cover the whole ground included within the limits of the taxing power.’ ” Ad valorem and excise taxes were then further distinguished in Callaway v. City of Overland Park, 211 Kan. 646, 651 , 508 P.2d 902 (1973): “The term ‘excise tax’ has come to mean and include practically any tax which is not an ad valorem, tax.

1982An express direction to impose a tax on all property by a uniform rule does not necessarily exclude taxation upon that which is not property, or cover the whole ground included within the limits of the taxing power.’ ” Ad valorem and excise taxes were then further distinguished in Callaway v. City of Overland Park, 211 Kan. 646, 651 , 508 P.2d 902 (1973): “The term ‘excise tax’ has come to mean and include practically any tax which is not an ad valorem, tax.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1964R. 2d 1142; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 , 206 S. W. 2d 539 ; King v. Priest, 357 Mo. 68 , 206 S. W. 2d 547 ; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 , 26 So. 2d 194 , 165 A. L.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950In Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., 137 Kan. 169 , 19 P.2d 478 , it was held: "On an objection to the introduction of evidence because the action for relief, on the ground of fraud, is barred by the two-year statute of limitations (R.S. 60-306, subdiv. 3), the allegation of recent discovery of the fraud, which occurred more than two years earlier is subject to the effect of constructive notice and to the application of the uniform rule that if by the exercise of reasonable diligence the fraud could have been discovered earlier, the failure to discover it will not toll the running of

1950In Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., 137 Kan. 169 , 19 P.2d 478 , it was held: "On an objection to the introduction of evidence because the action for relief, on the ground of fraud, is barred by the two-year statute of limitations (R.S. 60-306, subdiv. 3), the allegation of recent discovery of the fraud, which occurred more than two years earlier is subject to the effect of constructive notice and to the application of the uniform rule that if by the exercise of reasonable diligence the fraud could have been discovered earlier, the failure to discover it will not toll the running of

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1950A few of them are: Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 , 72 Pac. 846 ; Dusenbery v. Bidwell, 86 Kan. 666, 676-677 , *398 121 Pac. 1098 ; Rogers v. Lindsay, 89 Kan. 180, 181-182 , 131 Pac. 611 ; Foy v. Greenwade, 111 Kan. 111, 117-118 , 206 Pac. 332 ; City of Coffeyville v. Metcalf, supra; Bluff City v. Western Light & Power Corp., supra; Malone v. Young, 148 Kan. 250, 263-264 , 81 P.2d 23 ; Herthel v. Barth, 148 Kan. 308 , 81 P.2d 19 , 119 A.L.R. 326 ; Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg.

1945Its legal effect will, of course, be determined under the uniform rule announced in all our decisions (In re Estate of Bond, 158 Kan. 776, 781 , 150 P. 2d 343 , also Staab v. Staab, ante p. 417, 163 P. 2d 418 , this day decided, and cases there cited) that in ruling on a demurrer to the evidence courts do not weigh evidence or compare contradictory testimony; they must accept all evidence as true and consider only such portions thereof as are favorable to the party adducing it; they must disregard all unfavorable evidence, are required to give full credence to all evidence adduced by the party

1945Its legal effect will, of course, be determined under the uniform rule announced in all our decisions (In re Estate of Bond, 158 Kan. 776, 781 , 150 P. 2d 343 , also Staab v. Staab, ante p. 417, 163 P. 2d 418 , this day decided, and cases there cited) that in ruling on a demurrer to the evidence courts do not weigh evidence or compare contradictory testimony; they must accept all evidence as true and consider only such portions thereof as are favorable to the party adducing it; they must disregard all unfavorable evidence, are required to give full credence to all evidence adduced by the party

1945Its legal effect will, of course, be determined under the uniform rule announced in all our decisions (In re Estate of Bond, 158 Kan. 776, 781 , 150 P. 2d 343 , also Staab v. Staab, ante p. 417, 163 P. 2d 418 , this day decided, and cases there cited) that in ruling on a demurrer to the evidence courts do not weigh evidence or compare contradictory testimony; they must accept all evidence as true and consider only such portions thereof as are favorable to the party adducing it; they must disregard all unfavorable evidence, are required to give full credence to all evidence adduced by the party

1940If done solely to accomplish the employee’s own purpose or device, although in an interval of his regular service, the employer is not liable.” (p. 481.) (See, also, Zamora v. Wilson & Co., 129 Kan. 285 , 282 Pac. 719 ; Mayhew v. DeCoursey, 135 Kan. 184 , 10 P. 2d 10 .) Here, again, it may be said the jury, under proper instructions, might have concluded defendant had knowledge of Roush’s conduct and had consented thereto.

1940If done solely to accomplish the employee’s own purpose or device, although in an interval of his regular service, the employer is not liable.” (p. 481.) (See, also, Zamora v. Wilson & Co., 129 Kan. 285 , 282 Pac. 719 ; Mayhew v. DeCoursey, 135 Kan. 184 , 10 P. 2d 10 .) Here, again, it may be said the jury, under proper instructions, might have concluded defendant had knowledge of Roush’s conduct and had consented thereto.

1940If done solely to accomplish the employee’s own purpose or device, although in an interval of his regular service, the employer is not liable.” (p. 481.) (See, also, Zamora v. Wilson & Co., 129 Kan. 285 , 282 Pac. 719 ; Mayhew v. DeCoursey, 135 Kan. 184 , 10 P. 2d 10 .) Here, again, it may be said the jury, under proper instructions, might have concluded defendant had knowledge of Roush’s conduct and had consented thereto.

1940If done solely to accomplish the employee’s own purpose or device, although in an interval of his regular service, the employer is not liable.” (p. 481.) (See, also, Zamora v. Wilson & Co., 129 Kan. 285 , 282 Pac. 719 ; Mayhew v. DeCoursey, 135 Kan. 184 , 10 P. 2d 10 .) Here, again, it may be said the jury, under proper instructions, might have concluded defendant had knowledge of Roush’s conduct and had consented thereto.

1938In Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 , it was said: “A court is not obliged to tolerate an action instituted on behalf of an incompetent by a mere busybody, or which does not appear to be for the best interest of the incompetent; but a court is not obliged to dismiss an action for vindication of some important, legally protected interest of an incapable because the action was not commenced in due form.” (p. 3.) This seems to be the uniform rule.

1938In Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 , it was said: “A court is not obliged to tolerate an action instituted on behalf of an incompetent by a mere busybody, or which does not appear to be for the best interest of the incompetent; but a court is not obliged to dismiss an action for vindication of some important, legally protected interest of an incapable because the action was not commenced in due form.” (p. 3.) This seems to be the uniform rule.

1938In Holland v. Riggs, 53 Tex. Civ.

1934(Johnston v. Wear, 110 Kan. 237 , 204 Pac. 141 , and Baldwin v. Soldiers’ Compensation Board, 117 Kan. 129 , 230 Pac. 82 .) We find no error in the rulings and judgment.

1934(Johnston v. Wear, 110 Kan. 237 , 204 Pac. 141 , and Baldwin v. Soldiers’ Compensation Board, 117 Kan. 129 , 230 Pac. 82 .) We find no error in the rulings and judgment.

1934(Johnston v. Wear, 110 Kan. 237 , 204 Pac. 141 , and Baldwin v. Soldiers’ Compensation Board, 117 Kan. 129 , 230 Pac. 82 .) We find no error in the rulings and judgment.

1934(Johnston v. Wear, 110 Kan. 237 , 204 Pac. 141 , and Baldwin v. Soldiers’ Compensation Board, 117 Kan. 129 , 230 Pac. 82 .) We find no error in the rulings and judgment.

1928The sum reserved was deemed sufficient to take care of the final administrative expense, and was made somewhat larger than such amount by reason of the fact that the bank commissioner and general receiver did not know that in law claims could be barred by a proper notice fixing a reasonable time, short of the period of the statute of limitations, until after the decision of the case of Thompson v. Bone, Hope Bank case, by this court, December 11, 1926. ( 122 Kan. 195 .) “Finding No. 11.

1923(Huber v. Claudel, 71 Kan. 441, 80 Pac. 960 ; Brubaker v. Brubaker, 74 Kan. 220 , 86 Pac. 455 ; Darling v. Railway Co., 76 Kan. 893 , 94 Pac. 202 ; Heinze v. Light Co., 81 Kan. 261 , 105 Pac. 527 .)