Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 Kan. 37

Fuller v. Haynes

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided December 9, 1911

Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1911-12-09

<p>HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.</p> <p>Descents and Distributions — Bule. The rule of descents and distributions as declared in Russell v. Hallett, 23 Kan. 276, and followed in Tays v. Robinson, 68 Kan. 53, 74 Pac. 623, is adhered to.</p>

Relies on Russell v. Hallett · Tays v. Robinson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1911-12-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1950

3 state decisions

1019111920193019401950decided

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 →

Per Curiam:

¶1This is an action for the partition of land. The former owner, under whom all the parties claim, died intestate, leaving a brother and a sister of the full blood, two sisters and a brother of the half blood, and a stepmother, his sole heirs at law. It is insisted that the district court erred in holding the rule of descent to be as declared in Russell v. Hallett, 23 Kan. 276, followed in Tays v. Robinson, 68 Kan. 53, 74 Pac. 623, and we are asked to reconsider the subject and adopt a different rule, but the former decisions are adhered to.

¶2Error is also predicated upon the finding of the district court that no parol agreement had been made between the parties for a different division of the land. It was asserted by part of the heirs that such an agreement had been made and by the others that such an agreement had not been made. Upon conflicting evidence the district court found the issue against the appellants. Following numerous decisions of this court the finding can not be disturbed.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

/86/kan/37 · .json · Public domain