Steinkirchner v. Linscheid

195 P.2d 592, 165 Kan. 390, 1948 Kan. LEXIS 465
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Steinkirchner v. Linscheid. Read the opinion of the Court — 164 Kan. 179
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided July 10, 1948·No. No. 36,884·Published

Opinion

[391] OPINION ON REHEARING

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Cowan, J.:

A rehearing was granted in the cause. The case has been reargued but the court finds nothing in the reargument to change its previous views as expressed in the former opinion of the court filed January 24, 1948. The opinion and judgment of affirmance are adhered to.

Wedell and Hoch, JJ., adhere to the views previously indicated by their concurrence in the dissenting opinion of the late Mr. Justice Burch. Furthermore, they think that the court should have considered and determined the question as again urged by both parties in their joint motion for the rehearing, whether William H. Steinkirchner possesses a homestead right in the Harvey county property involved, a question properly presented under the declaratory judgment statute, G. S. 1935, 60-3127.

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

Steinkirchner v. Linscheid, 195 P.2d 592, 165 Kan. 390, 1948 Kan. LEXIS 465 (kan 1948).

195 P.2d 592 (Steinkirchner v. Linscheid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.