Hauser v. Doyle's Estate
| Decision Date | 20 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | 33015,33016. |
| Citation | 59 P.2d 674,144 Kan. 1 |
| Parties | HAUSER v. DOYLE'S ESTATE. EBRIGHT v. SAME. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Marion County; Cassius M. Clark, Judge.
Appeal from District Court, Marion County; Cassius M. Clark, Judge.
On motions for rehearing, for modification of the opinion, and for clarification of the opinion.
Motion for rehearing denied, and opinion clarified.
For original opinion, see 143 Kan. 719, 56 P.2d 1217.
Clarence V. Beck, Atty. Gen., and Forrest Smythe, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellants.
W. H Carpenter and John E. Wheeler, both of Marion, for appellees Henry Young and associate heirs at law of Ellen Doyle.
Braden C. Johnston, of Topeka, for other appellee.
Since the filing of the opinion in this case (reported in 143 Kan 719, 56 P.2d 1217), a motion for rehearing has been filed by Henry Young, et al., claimants to the estate; also a motion for modification of the opinion by the administrator and a motion for clarification of the opinion by the appellants.
The motion for rehearing presents no matter that was not presented on original submission of the cause and that was not considered when the opinion was prepared. The motion is denied.
The other two motions pertain solely to the right of the Attorney General to appoint as special assistants attorneys other than those specifically provided for in our statutes. We stated the controversy did not arise on that question. We are now advised the question was raised in the district court despite the lack of showing in the record, and that in order to avoid controversy on a further hearing as to the appellant's claims, it should be now decided.
The statute (R.S. 22--1204) makes it clear the allowance is not for services, but only to defray "reasonable expenses." It does not need to be demonstrated that the Attorney General, by reason of the multitude of duties cast upon him by various statutes, cannot personally perform all such duties, and this is recognized by statutory provision for certain assistants. The appellees contend the Attorney General can appoint as assistant to aid him in making the inquiries and examination mentioned in the statute under consideration only such persons as are by him appointed as Assistant Attorneys General by reason of specific provisions of the statutes. But is he so limited?
It is the duty of the Attorney General to so conduct the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thatcher v. City of St. Louis
...duties." Respondents state that the Attorney General has authority to employ special counsel to represent him. [Citing Hauser v. Doyle's Estate (Kan.), 59 P.2d 674; McQuesten v. Attorney General (Mass.), 72 N.E. Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Knox (Miss.), 108 So. 907; In re Creighton's Esta......
-
Stricklin v. Parsons Stockyard Co.
...man should realize as involving an unreasonable risk of causing an invasion of an interest of another.' [Restatement, Torts, § 284.]' (144 Kan. 1. c. 611, 62 P.2d 1. c. We think the amended petition is not susceptible of an interpretation that Burt intentionally inflicted plaintiff's injuri......
-
Tecumseh School Dist. No. 7, Shawnee County v. Throckmorton
...interests of the state which, in the general classification of powers of government, would be regarded as legislative in character.' (144 Kan. 1. c. 316, 317, 58 P.2d p. 1054.) (Emphasis Far from overruling the Storey case, the Hines case reaffirmed its holding, and in the opinion it was sa......
-
Beck v. Good
...and to have their expenses, such as hotel bills, railroad fare, telephone tolls, and similar items paid out of the estate. See Hauser v. Estate of Doyle, supra. It should be noted that the probate court and the district court allowed the application of the Attorney General as to the fee of ......