State Department of Social Welfare v. Caplinger

Supreme Court of Kansas

State Department of Social Welfare v. Caplinger

139 P.2d 156, 157 Kan. 131, 1943 Kan. LEXIS 152

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 12, 1943

DocketNo. 35,888

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 P.2d 156 (State Department of Social Welfare v. Caplinger) 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

State Department of Social Welfare v. Caplinger, 139 P.2d 156, 157 Kan. 131, 1943 Kan. LEXIS 152 (kan 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This was a proceedings where the essential facts are about the same as those stated in the case of In re Estate of Colclazier, ante, p. 125, this day decided, except that the patient in this [132]*132case was a county patient rather than a private patient. The trial court allowed only a part of the amount claimed by the board. The only argument in this case in addition to those made in the Colclazier case was that this patient was a county patient and the board was not required to make the demand because since he was a county patient it would be useless to make a demand upon his estate. The statute provides that an annual demand shall be made where it is sought to hold a spouse, parent or child liable. A careful study of the statutes has caused us to conclude that a demand is a prerequisite for the collection of the cost of the maintenance of the patient whether he be a county patient or a private one.

The judgment in this case is affirmed.

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.:

This was a proceedings where the essential facts are about the same as those stated in the case of In re Estate of Colclazier, ante, p. 125, this day decided, except that the patient in this [132]*132case was a county patient rather than a private patient. The trial court allowed only a part of the amount claimed by the board. The only argument in this case in addition to those made in the Colclazier case was that this patient was a county patient and the board was not required to make the demand because since he was a county patient it would be useless to make a demand upon his estate. The statute provides that an annual demand shall be made where it is sought to hold a spouse, parent or child liable. A careful study of the statutes has caused us to conclude that a demand is a prerequisite for the collection of the cost of the maintenance of the patient whether he be a county patient or a private one.

The judgment in this case is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 P.2d 156, 157 Kan. 131, 1943 Kan. LEXIS 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-social-welfare-v-caplinger-kan-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack