Kinkead v. Maxwell
Decision Date | 05 January 1907 |
Docket Number | 14,815 |
Citation | 88 P. 523,75 Kan. 50 |
Parties | LAURA STONE KINKEAD v. ANNIE STONE MAXWELL et al |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1907.
Error from Leavenworth district court; JAMES H. GILLPATRICK, judge.
STATEMENT.
THIS suit was commenced in the district court of Leavenworth county, August 19, 1905, by Annie Stone Maxwell for the partition of the real estate in controversy. The defendants were Laura Stone Kinkead, Laura de Lavillon Kinkead, Robert Stone Kinkead, and George B. Kinkead. On the trial the court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which so far as necessary to an understanding of the errors here complained of are as follow:
The will referred to reads:
On February 27, 1892, a codicil was added, as follows:
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. PARTITION--Right of Adult Owner. As a general rule every adult owner of an undivided fee simple estate in real property is entitled to partition, as a matter of right.
2. PARTITION--Life-estate of Cotenant Not a Bar. In such a case the fact that the cotenant holds an estate for life only in the property will not defeat the action.
3. WILLS--Estate Demised. The will involved in this case examined and held to devise an estate in fee and not for life only.
C. F. W. Dassler, for plaintiff in error, and cross-petitioner in error, Annie Stone Maxwell.
William Dill, for the other defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error claims that the district court erred in holding that she took only a life-estate under her father's will, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wolfe v. Stanford
...in equity was not. The absolute nature of the right to partition had been previously recognized by the Kansas court in Kinkead v. Maxwell et al., 75 Kan. 50, 88 P. 523. This case was cited in the Beardsley Case as establishing the absolute nature of the right under the statute. But in the B......
-
Fry v. Dewees
...the respective interests of the owners thereof, if known." G.S.1935, 60-2101. And see Squires v. Clark, 17 Kan. 84, 87. In Kinkead v. Maxwell, 75 Kan. 50, 88 P. 523, it held: "As a general rule, every adult owner of an undivided fee-simple estate in real property is entitled to partition, a......
-
Wolfe v. Stanford
... ... The absolute nature of the right to partition had been ... previously recognized by the Kansas court in Kinkead v ... Maxwell et al., 75 Kan. 50, 88 P. 523. This case was ... cited in the Beardsley Case as establishing the absolute ... nature of the right ... ...
-
Strait v. Fuller
...if known.' The 1953 amendment added the words italicized to the original statute. This court has held consistently since Kinkead v. Maxwell, 75 Kan. 50, 88 P. 523, that the owners of an undivided interest in real estate were entitled to partition as a matter of right. The court's decisions ......