Fergus v. Tomlinson
| Decision Date | 07 July 1928 |
| Docket Number | 27,843 |
| Citation | 126 Kan. 427,268 P. 849 |
| Parties | EMMA B. FERGUS et al., Appellants, v. ERNEST TOMLINSON, as Administrator, etc., Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1928
Appeal from Lyon district court; ISAAC T. RICHARDSON, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. COMMON LAW--Effect in Kansas. The common law obtains and is in force in this state unless abrogated by statute.
2. ALIENS--Right to Inherit--Personal Property. Under the common law, alienage is not an obstacle to the acquisition of title to personal property by one next of kin.
W. C Roberts, of Emporia, and J. G. Hutchison, of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellants.
Owen S. Samuel, of Emporia, for the appellee.
The question involved here is whether a subject of Great Britain is entitled to inherit the personal property of his deceased wife, a citizen of this state and country. The plaintiffs are blood relatives and collateral heirs of Anna M. Power-Tomlinson. Defendant, her husband, a British subject, was administrator of her estate by appointment of the probate court of Lyon county, Kansas, of which county and state she was a resident. The husband prevailed and plaintiffs appeal.
At the time for the final settlement of the estate the plaintiffs appeared and filed a verified motion alleging that they were Mrs. Tomlinson's heirs at law, and that the defendant, a British citizen and subject, could not inherit from her, and praying that the personal property of which she died seized be ordered distributed to them. Their motion was overruled by the probate court, whereupon they appealed to the district court. The appeal was there heard upon the verified motion and an agreed statement of facts as follows:
Upon a trial in the district court the order of the probate court was affirmed and a judgment rendered to the effect that the administrator make distribution of the personal property pursuant to the order of the probate court.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendant, being a British subject, is treated by the law of descents and distributions as if he did not exist; that all of the estate goes to the next in order of descent. An extensive argument and many authorities are cited in support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Dautel
...189 Kan. 689, 371 P.2d 193; State ex rel. Peterson v. Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 158 Kan. 603, 605, 149 P.2d 604; Fergus v. Tomlinson, 126 Kan. 427, 268 P. 849; and In re Frye, 173 Kan. 392, 396, 246 P.2d The same thing that has been said concerning the disability of married women m......
-
Krachler's Estate, In re
...distinction at common law between the rights of aliens to acquire lands and their rights to acquire personal property. Fergus v. Tomlinson, 126 Kan. 427, 268 P. 849. It is generally recognized that in the absence of statute to the contrary, nonresident aliens may inherit personal property u......
-
Gonzales v. Atchison T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...the law of this state. (State ex rel. Peterson v. Kansas State Board of Agriculture, 158 Kan. 603, 605, 149 P.2d 604; Fergus v. Tomlinson, 126 Kan. 427, 268 P. 849; and In re Frye, 173 Kan. 392, 396, 246 P.2d Apparently the only Kansas decision approaching the subject of the doctrine of for......
-
State v. Hunt
...Kansas has long recognized that the common law is applied here unless modified by statute or court decision. See K.S.A. 77–109; Fergus v. Tomlinson, 126 Kan. 427, Syl. ¶ 1, 268 P. 849 (1928). But the parties initially disagree about whether a common-law necessity defense may be recognized i......