Larimer v. Knoyle
Citation | 23 P. 487,43 Kan. 338 |
Parties | J. B. LARIMER et al. v. SARAH ANN KNOYLE |
Decision Date | 08 March 1890 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Shawnee District Court.
JUDGMENT for plaintiff Knoyle, at the January term, 1888. The facts are substantially stated in the opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J. B Larimer, and John W. Day, for plaintiffs in error.
Elliott & Bradley, for defendant in error.
OPINION
This was an action brought in the district court of Shawnee county, by Sarah Ann Knoyle against J. B. Larimer and others to set aside a certain will of Jeremiah Knoyle, deceased, and to have the estate purporting to be disposed of by the will declared to belong to the plaintiff, who, she alleges, is the widow and sole surviving heir of the deceased; but the question finally decided by the court below, and the one brought to this court, is, whether a certain decree of divorce purporting to divorce the aforesaid Jeremiah Knoyle from the aforesaid Sarah Ann Knoyle is void or not for want of jurisdiction in the court rendering it, or for fraud on the part of Knoyle in procuring it. A full set of pleadings was filed in the case, a petition, an answer, a reply and a demurrer by the defendants, to the second paragraph of the reply. The demurrer was overruled by the court below, and the defendants, as plaintiffs in error, bring the case to this court for the purpose of having such ruling reviewed and reversed.
The facts of the case, admitted by the pleadings, appear to be substantially as follows: On October 16, 1860, the aforesaid Jeremiah Knoyle and Sarah Ann Knoyle were married. She at the time had about $ 2,000 in money and personal property, which he obtained from her and used. They lived together as husband and wife up to about February 24, 1884, and during the time by their joint efforts they accumulated a large amount of property. From about the year 1869 until his death, which took place on May 1, 1887, they resided in Kansas, and she has resided here since except as hereafter stated. Prior to February 24, 1884, he sent her out of the state of Kansas to visit friends in other states, where she remained until after his death, which took place as before stated on May 1, 1887. On September 1, 1884, he paid to her $ 1,700 and took a receipt therefor, which shows on its face that the amount was paid in discharge of all claims by her against him and his estate; but she alleges in her reply that the receipt was procured from her fraudulently, she believing at the time that it was intended to be nothing more than merely a receipt for $ 1,700. On February 24,1885, Knoyle, by his counsel, drew up a petition for a divorce from his wife upon the ground of willful absence from him and abandonment of him for a period of more than one year. On the same day he verified his petition by stating upon oath that the allegations therein contained were true. Also on the same day, February 24, 1885, he made another affidavit, which was for service of summons by publication, in which he stated, among other things, that Sarah Ann Knoyle, the defendant in that action, was a non-resident of the state of Kansas, and that service of summons could not be made upon her within the state. On February 26, 1885, he filed all these papers in the district court of Pottawatomie county, in which county he resided, and on the next day, February 27, 1885, he commenced to procure service of summons by publication by having a proper notice of the action published in a newspaper of the city of Wamego, in said county -- the first publication being on that day. This publication was continued in each issue of the newspaper for four consecutive weeks. The answer-day was to be on or before April 11, 1885. On February 28, 1885, Knoyle made another affidavit, in which he stated that the residence of Sarah Ann Knoyle, the defendant in that action, was unknown to him, and that he could not ascertain the same by any means within his control. This affidavit was filed in the district court of Pottawatomie county on March 3, 1885. On June 13, 1885, the aforesaid decree of divorce was granted to Knoyle, Sarah Ann Knoyle never having made any appearance in the case. On July 24, 1886, Knoyle executed a will, giving all his property, real and personal, to others than Sarah Ann Knoyle, and appointing J. B. Larimer as his executor. On May 1, 1887, Knoyle died, leaving no children or offspring, nor any wife unless Sarah Ann Knoyle was still his wife. Afterward the aforesaid will was duly probated, and J. B. Larimer, who is the executor under it, and one of the defendants in this action, is now in the possession of all the estate of the deceased testator. This action, which was brought to set aside said will, etc., was commenced on June 2, 1887. On July 14, 1887, Larimer answered, setting up among other things the aforesaid decree of divorce, and alleging that because of such divorce, the plaintiff, Mrs. Knoyle, was not the wife of Knoyle at the time of his death, and could not, under the laws of Kansas, and the laws of descents and distributions, take any interest in her former husband's estate. On August 24, 1887, the plaintiff replied, setting forth in the second paragraph of her reply, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Moore
...court to hear and determine all issues in the action in which such service is made, Ogden v. Walters, 12 Kan. 282, 294; Larimer v. Knoyle, 43 Kan. 338, 347, 23 P. 487; Miller v. Miller, 89 Kan. 151, 130 P. 681; Douglass Hospital and Training School for Nurses v. White, 110 Kan. 498, 204 P. ......
-
Elstermeyer v. City of Cheyenne
... ... make and file such an affidavit prevents the entry of a legal ... judgment. Ensign v. Ensign, [57 Wyo. 268] 45 Kan ... 612, 26 P. 7; Larimer v. Knoyle, 43 Kan. 338, 23 P ... 487. While the statute of Kansas is not phrased exactly the ... same as the Wyoming law touching constructive ... ...
-
Sammons v. Pike
...of the proper state. The fraud consisted of inducing the noninterposition of a defense. Promise to dismiss was broken. And see Lorimer v. Knoyle, 43 Kan. 338; Johnson v. Sharpe (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 1006 (where the answer was filed by an attorney without the authority of defendant, then......
-
Leichty v. Kansas City Bridge Co., 39379.
...was subject to collateral attack. In support of the first contention appellant cites the following Kansas decisions: Larimer v. Knoyle, 43 Kan. 338; McCormick v. McCormick, 82 Kan. 31, 107 Pac. 546; Brumbaugh v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 53, 107 Pac. 792; Martens v. Green, 113 Kan. 142, 213 Pac. 642;......