Funk v. Fish
255 P. 645, 123 Kan. 207, 1927 Kan. LEXIS 100
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Funk v. Fish. Read the opinion of the Court — 122 Kan. 294 →
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The appellant’s motion for a rehearing is overruled. The court does not hold, however, that want of mental capacity to transact business is in itself conclusive proof of want of capacity to execute a deed, nor that later unsworn declarations of the maker of a deed are competent evidence on the issue of undue influence further than as they may tend to show the grantor’s mental condition, as to which, however, see 3 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1738.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Funk v. Fish, 255 P. 645, 123 Kan. 207, 1927 Kan. LEXIS 100 (kan 1927).
255 P. 645 (Funk v. Fish) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.