Kistler v. Ernst
Decision Date | 11 February 1899 |
Docket Number | 11095 |
Citation | 56 P. 18,60 Kan. 243 |
Parties | N. D. KISTLER, Administrator of the estate of Henrietta Ernst, deceased, v. JOHN ERNST |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1899.
Error from Atchison district court; HENRY L. ALDEN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
W. F Guthrie, for plaintiff in error.
H. C Solomon, for defendant in error.
The admitted facts in this case are as follows: On July 16, 1891 John Ernst, a widower, and Henrietta Juencke, a widow, both of Atchison county, entered into an antenuptial agreement in writing, and immediately thereafter were married to each other. At that time Ernst owned more than 500 acres of land in Atchison county and considerable personal property. Mrs. Juencke owned a half interest in forty acres of well-improved farm land near Atchison, which she at the time supposed she owned absolutely, and a large amount of personal property. Mr. Ernst had a number of children by a former marriage living near and with him; and Mrs. Ernst a sister, toward whom she was very affectionately disposed. The parties to the antenuptial agreement had no children by their marriage. Mrs. Ernst died on August 14, 1896, leaving Mr. Ernst her sole heir unless he is excluded by the terms of the antenuptial agreement.
Mrs. Ernst's estate at the time of her death was in the hands of a guardian, appointed because of her insanity, occurring subsequent to the marriage, and was by such guardian turned over to the plaintiff in error, Kistler, as administrator of her estate. The debts of the estate were substantially all liquidated at the time these proceedings were commenced, the net assets in the hands of the administrator being about $ 4000. Mr. Ernst, as primarily sole heir, claiming not to be barred by the antenuptial agreement, applied to the probate court for an order on the administrator to turn over the funds to him as sole distributee, tendering a bond with sufficient sureties, as provided by the statute. The probate court held that he was barred of any interest in the estate by the antenuptial agreement, and denied his application. He appealed. The application was tried de novo in the district court, and judgment rendered in favor of Ernst, ordering the administrator to turn over to him the estate upon the giving of a bond.
The agreement between the parties was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby v. Kent
... ... v. Stewart, 7 Johns 229; Beard v. Beard, 22 W.Va ... 130; Jones v. Lamont, 118 Cal. 499, 50 P. 766, 52 ... Am. St. Rep. 251; Kestler v. Ernst, 60 Kan. 243, 56 ... P. 18; Willis v. Jones, 42 Md. 422; Dennis v ... Perkins, 88 Kan. 428, 129 P. 165, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1219; ... Smith v ... ...
-
Dennis v. Perkins
... ... in order to preclude such right an intention so to do should ... be expressed or clearly inferable from the terms of the ... instrument. (Kistler v. Ernst, 60 Kan. 243, 56 P ... 18; King v. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683, 692, 60 P. 731; ... Rouse v. Rouse, 76 Kan. 311, 91 P. 45; Casey v ... Casey, ... ...
-
McVicar v. McVicar
...v. Ernst, 60 Kan. 243, 56 P. 18, and Rouse v. Rouse, 76 Kan. 311, 91 P. 45, are cited as controlling here. A copy of the contract in the Kistler case is set out in the and the court failed to find in its terms any language which purported to renounce the surviving spouse's right of inherita......
-
Johnson's Estate, In re
...In their briefs counsel for each party have discussed a number of our leading cases on the subject, among them being Kistler v. Ernst, 60 Kan. 243, 56 P. 18; King v. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683, 60 P. 731, 198 P. 969; Rouse v. Rouse, 76 Kan. 311, 91 P. 45; Casey v. Casey, 84 Kan. 380, 113 P. 1047......