Baldwin v. Kansas Soldiers' Compensation Board

230 P. 82, 117 Kan. 129, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 409
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedNovember 8, 1924
DocketNo. 25,776
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 230 P. 82 (Baldwin v. Kansas Soldiers' Compensation Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baldwin v. Kansas Soldiers' Compensation Board, 230 P. 82, 117 Kan. 129, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 409 (kan 1924).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

The plaintiff, who claimed to have been a Kansas soldier in the world war, was denied compensation and appealed to the district court of Labette county. The issue was whether the plaintiff was a bona fide resident .of Kansas at the time he enlisted in the army. The trial court decided in the negative. Plaintiff assigns error on' this finding of fact and argues that the trial court did not give due significance to the fact that plaintiff’s parents, residents of Missouri, had emancipated the claimant during his minority so as to leave him free to establish a residence for himself separate and apart from that of his parents. Plaintiff contends that the evidence established the fact that he was an emancipated minor, and that as such he had á right to establish a separate residence. Both contentions may be conceded, but they do not control this case. The evidence did not show — to the satisfaction of the trial court, at least— that plaintiff was a bona fide resident of Kansas at the time he entered the army. Indeed, the evidence to which the trial court gave credence was to the effect that plaintiff was not then a resident of Kansas. Since there was some competent evidence to support the trial court’s finding of fact, its decision and judgment cannot be disturbed. (Bayer v. Cockerill, 3 Kan. 282, syl. ¶ 6; Farney v. Hauser, 109 Kan. 75, syl. ¶ 7, 198 Pac. 178; In re Soldiers’ Compensation Appeals, Doniphan’s Case, 116 Kan. 601, 603, 227 Pac. 1117; id., 116 Kan. 607, 229 Pac. 355.)

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richardson v. Kansas Soldiers Compensation Board
92 P.2d 114 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1939)
Vennum v. Kansas Soldiers' Compensation Board
77 P.2d 980 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1938)
Kelley v. State
66 P.2d 556 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)
Schlender v. Maretoli
37 P.2d 933 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1934)
Knight v. Kansas Compensation Board
21 P.2d 327 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1933)
Martin v. Shell Petroleum Corp.
299 P. 261 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1931)
Huston v. Tower
268 P. 839 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1928)
Deckwa v. Kansas Soldiers' Compensation Board
250 P. 332 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 P. 82, 117 Kan. 129, 1924 Kan. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-v-kansas-soldiers-compensation-board-kan-1924.