Riggs v. Snell
| Citation | 186 Kan. 725,352 P.2d 1056 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 41706,41706 |
| Parties | James RIGGS, Appellee, v. W. M. SNELL, Appellant. (Dianna Riggs, Robert M. Doll, E. E. Giles, Edward E. Giles, Harold F. Young, and, if any of the above named defendants is deceased, the respective unknown heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, trustees, creditors and assigns thereof, and the unknown heirs, executors, administrators, devisees, trustees, creditors and assigns of Georgia Elma Snell, deceased, Appellees.) |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
John A. Etling and W. N. Beezley, Kinsley, were on the brief for appellant.
Russell L. Strobel and Roscoe E. Peterson, Larned, were on the brief for appellee.
Subsequent to our dicision in this case on March 5, 1960, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court, counsel for the appellant filed a motion in which they earnestly urge and request the court to grant a rehearing. Members of the bar association of Lyon county, upon their request, were granted permission to file a brief amici curiae in support of the motion for rehearing, and they vigorously contend that our decision will bring about 'serious doubts and dire results' with respect to real-estate titles throughout the state.
Both briefs in support of the motion for rehearing mention the fact that our opinion in this case did not refer to Withers v. Barnes, 95 Kan. 798, 149 P. 691, Ann.Cas.1917B, 55, which is generally recognized to be a landmark case on the subject of joint tenancy under the law then in effect. We concede that reference to the case perhaps should have been made.
At the time of the Withers case the governing statute was § 1, Ch. 203, Laws of 1891 (later found as G.S.1935, 22-132), and it was held the statute merely abolished joint tenancies and the doctrine of survivorship as they existed at common law, but did not undertake to forbid joint tenancies and survivorship by negotiation or contract of the parties concerned. See also Malone v. Sullivan, 136 Kan. 193, 196, 14 P.2d 647, 85 A.L.R. 275, and Bouska v. Bouska, 159 Kan. 276, 279, 153 P.2d 923. Considering the statute is force at that time and the facts as disclosed by the opinion, we have no fault to find with the holding in the Withers case, and our decision in the instant case was in no way intended to 'water down or dilute' the holding in that case.
In 1939, as a part of the new property act, the legislature enacted what now appears as G.S.1949, 58-501, and which is set out in full at page 358 of our opinion in this case in 186 Kan., at page 56 of 350 P.2d. As there stated, the provisions of this later statute leave no doubt of the fact that presumptions are almost wholly in favor of tenancies in common, and that in order to overcome such presumption the language used in a grant or devise must make it clear that a joint tenancy was intended to be created. The words 'clear' or 'clearly' have a well-understood meaning. Jackman v. Lawrence Drilling & Development Co., 106 Kan. 59, syl. 1, 187 P. 258; State ex rel. Dole v. Kirchner, 182 Kan. 622, 625, 322...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood's Estate, Matter of
...case law. (In re Estate of Swingle, 178 Kan. 529, 530, 289 P.2d 778; Riggs v. Snell, 186 Kan. 355, 359, 350 P.2d 54, reh. denied, 186 Kan. 725, 352 P.2d 1056; Miller v. Higgins, 188 Kan. 736, 737, 366 P.2d 257; and In re Estate of Johnson, 202 Kan. 684, 695, 452 P.2d 286, modified, 203 Kan.......
-
In re C.A.T.
...of K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 59–2136(h). But J.M.D. did not address the specific issue presented in this case. See Riggs v. Snell, 186 Kan. 725, 727, 352 P.2d 1056 (1960)(“[A] decision of this or any other court is authority only for the exact question presented for judicial determination.”). In J.......
-
Davis v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.
...This court recognized the concern of members of the Bar following the decision in Riggs v. Snell, supra, and a rehearing (Riggs v. Snell, 186 Kan. 725, 352 P.2d 1056.) The result was an affirmance of the former When the Riggs case came before this court in 1960, the court, as then constitut......
-
Miller v. Higgins
...also Malone v. Sullivan, 136 Kan. 193, 14 P.2d 647, 85 A.L.R. 275; Riggs v. Snell, 186 Kan. 355, 350 P.2d 54; rehearing denied, 186 Kan. 725, 352 P.2d 1056; In re Estate of Swingle, 178 Kan. 529, 289 P.2d In an article entitled 'Jointly Owned Property and Its Disadvantages,' written by Mr. ......