Bixman v. Bixman

83 P.2d 639, 148 Kan. 597, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 235
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedNovember 5, 1938
DocketNo. 34,044
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 P.2d 639 (Bixman v. Bixman) 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
Bixman v. Bixman, 83 P.2d 639, 148 Kan. 597, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 235 (kan 1938).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

Plaintiff has appealed from the ruling of the trial court sustaining defendant’s motion for judgment on the petition and opening statement of counsel for plaintiff.

The petition and opening statement may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff is fifty-three years of age. Defendant is his mother and is about eighty years of age. Plaintiff’s father died when plaintiff was about six months old. He and his mother have always lived together until shortly before this action was brought. In 1911, with their joint funds, they purchased certain described vacant lots in ■Kansas City. The title was taken in the mother’s name. About ten years later the lots were improved with their joint funds by the construction of a residence thereon, which since that time has been their home. Plaintiff has been employed for several years and from his earnings has assisted in maintaining the home and has given his mother money to pay the taxes thereon. Plaintiff married three or four- years ago. Shortly before this action was filed defendant left the home (the inference being because of domestic discord) and brought in the city court an action against this plaintiff for peaceable entry and forcible detainer of the premises.

This action was to enjoin defendant from prosecuting the forcible detainer action in the city court and to quiet plaintiff’s title to the real property involved. The trial court was of the opinion the petition and opening statement did not set forth grounds for the relief sought. We agree with this view.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

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

Related

Northington v. Northington
149 P.2d 622 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 P.2d 639, 148 Kan. 597, 1938 Kan. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bixman-v-bixman-kan-1938.