Linderholm v. Ekblad
| Decision Date | 11 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,408 |
| Citation | 139 P. 1015,92 Kan. 9 |
| Parties | JUSTUS B. LINDERHOLM, Plaintiff, v. JOHN EKBLAD, Defendant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1914.
Original proceeding in quo warranto.
Motion sustained.
John F Hanson, of Lindsborg, for the plaintiff.
Frank O. Johnson, of McPherson, for the defendant.
This is an original action in the nature of quo warranto brought by the plaintiff, Justus B. Linderholm, to oust the defendant from the office of guardian of the plaintiff, "alleged insane." Four reasons are assigned as a basis for the action: First, that the probate court had no jurisdiction to appoint the guardian; second, that the plaintiff had no notice of the hearing in the probate court and no opportunity to be present in person or by attorney; third, that the district court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial for the reason that there had been no proper finding of insanity in the probate court; fourth, that the defendant was administrator of the estate of the mother of plaintiff and there were matters to adjust between this estate and the plaintiff, and defendant was disqualified by reason thereof to be appointed as such guardian. Probably all of these questions are appealable to the district court after a hearing in the probate court under the provisions of subdivision 9 of section 3624 of the General Statutes of 1909.
The defendant filed a demurrer to the petition and also a motion to dismiss the action. The motion and demurrer are substantially on the same grounds, and as the motion, in the view we take of it, makes a final disposition of the case in this court, we will consider the motion only.
Four grounds are assigned as cause for dismissal: First, that the case is improperly on the docket because no security for costs has been given, as required by Rule 4 of this court second, that as an original civil action it is improperly upon the docket for the reason that no affidavit has been filed giving reasons why this action is not brought in an inferior court, as required by Rule 5; third, that this court has no jurisdiction for the reason that the petition on its face shows that the plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law; fourth, that this court has no jurisdiction in this case to grant the relief prayed for.
The first, second and third grounds of the motion are involved in other cases pending in this court and need not be determined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeburne v. City of Emporia
...above mentioned, has been made which holds cities liable for damages resulting from defects in their streets and highways. Linderholm v. Ekblad, 92 Kan. 9, 139 P. 1015; Hibbard v. City of Wichita, 98 Kan. 498, 501, 159 P. 399, L.R.A.1917A, 399; Foster v. Capital Gas & Electric Co., 125 Kan.......
-
Linderholm v. State
...the lunacy proceedings against Linderholm and results flowing therefrom. See State v. Linderholm, 90 Kan. 489, 135 P. 564; Linderholm v. Ekblad, 92 Kan. 9, 139 P. 1015; State v. Linderholm, 95 Kan. 669, 149 P. Linderholm v. Kansas Conference, 97 Kan. 212, 155 P. 24; In re Linderholm, 101 Ka......
-
State v. Linderholm
... ... 857; The State v ... Linderholm, 90 Kan. 489, 135 P. 564.) A reading of the ... decisions and opinions there recorded is necessary to get the ... import of this appeal ... Some ... light on the historical aspects of this case can also be ... gleaned from Linderholm v. Ekblad, 92 Kan. 9, 139 P ... 1015. From those and the documents filed in this appeal it ... appears that about six years ago Justus B. Linderholm was ... adjudged insane in a lunacy proceeding in the probate court ... of McPherson county. On appeal to the district court the same ... conclusion was ... ...