Rumor v. Rumor

72 P. 1101, 67 Kan. 822, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 342
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedMay 9, 1903
DocketNo. 13,112
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 P. 1101 (Rumor v. Rumor) 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
Rumor v. Rumor, 72 P. 1101, 67 Kan. 822, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 342 (kan 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The principal claim of error in this case is that there is no sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. It was an action by the wife against her husband’s father to recover of him’her damages occasioned by the alienation of her husband’s affections, by reason of the malicious acts and words of the father. Necessarily in such a case very little of direct evidence can be adduced. Much must be left to deduction. We find in the evidence sufficient to sustain the conclusions arrived at by the jury.

It is further claimed that the court erred in the admission and rejection of evidence. All of these claims have been carefully investigated, but no prejudicial error is revealed.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

Related

Roberts v. Dockstader
61 P.2d 114 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1936)
Davidson v. Douglass
284 P. 427 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1930)
Burch v. Goodson
116 P. 216 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 P. 1101, 67 Kan. 822, 1903 Kan. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rumor-v-rumor-kan-1903.