Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

67 Kan. 225

Gallon v. Haas

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 6, 1903

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1903-06-06

Error from Doniphan district court; William I. Stuart, judge. STATEMENT. Fredericka Gallon was cited to appear in the probate court and show cause for withholding from probate the last will and testament of her husband, Henry Gallon. After a hearing at which witnesses were called and testified, the court found that Henry Gallon died in Doniphan county in 1897, leaving a will which, since his death, had been destroyed by his wife, Fredericka.

Relies on Rich v. Bowker · Noecker v. Noecker · Sill v. Sill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1903-06-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1946

4 state decisions

2019031910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

¶2The first error assigned is that the court should have allowed the plaintiff in error a jury trial, which she demanded. There was no error in this refusal. (Rich v. Bowker, 25 Kan. 7 ; Hudson v. Hughan, 56 id. 152, 42 Pac. 701.)

¶3The contention that the title to real estate was involved in the proceeding is without merit. See Park v. Busenbark, 59 Kan. 65, 51 Pac. 907 ; Tipton v. McCalla, 59 id. 719, 54 Pac. 1054; McClain v. Jones, 60 id. 639, 57 Pac. 500.

¶4It appeared that the wife of the testator at first *227signed the will under his name. • Her signature was then erased, and she signed a consent to his disposition of the property lower down on the paper. As we understand the argument of counsel for plaintiff in error, they contend that the consent of the wife must precede the execution of the will by the testator. We do not think so. It is sufficient if it be given at any time during the life of the testator. (Sill v. Sill, 31 Kan. 248, 1 Pac. 556.)

¶5There is no merit in the contention that there is a conflict between sections 7972 and 7973, General Statutes of 1901, relating to wills by married persons. See Noecker v. Noecker, 66 Kan. 347, 71 Pac. 815.

¶6We have given attention to the other grounds of error presented in counsel’s brief, but find in them nothing substantial.

¶7The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.
/67/kan/225 · .json · Public domain