Gallon v. Haas

Supreme Court of Kansas

Gallon v. Haas

72 P. 770, 67 Kan. 225, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 6, 1903

DocketNo. 13,123

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 72 P. 770 (Gallon v. Haas) 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

Gallon v. Haas, 72 P. 770, 67 Kan. 225, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 235 (kan 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

The 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.)

The 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.

It appeared that the wife of the testator at first [227]*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.)

There 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.

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

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

The 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.)

The 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.

It appeared that the wife of the testator at first [227]*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.)

There 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.

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

The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 P. 770, 67 Kan. 225, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallon-v-haas-kan-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack