Skip to main content

Black v. Black

Citations

  • 64 Kan. 689
  • 68 P. 662
  • 1902 Kan. LEXIS 263

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Husband and Wipe — Death of Husband — Partition. Where a husband, acting under a power of attorney, collects money due his wife, and with such money pays the purchase-price of a tract of land, taking the legal title in his own name, but thereafter disclaims his ownership of the land and refers to it as the property of his wife, after his death partition of the land will not be awarded at the suit of the children of the husband and wife claiming an interest in the property as his heirs-at-law as against the widow claiming to own the property.</p> <p>2. Fraud — Limitation of Action — Constructive Notice Sufficient. The phrase, “until discovery of the fraud,” in subdivision 3 of section 18 of the code (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 4446), which provides the limitation of two years.m case of “ action for relief on the ground of fraud,” and which also provides that “ the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud,” does not necessarily mean until the party complaining had actual notice of the fraud alleged to have been committed, for constructive notice of the fraud is sufficient to set the statute in motion even though there may be no actual notice. Where the means of discovery lie in public records required by law to be kept, which involve the very transaction in hand, and the interests of the parties to the litigation, the public records themselves are sufficient constructive notice of the fraud to set the statute in motion.</p> <p>3. -Accounting to Heirs by Administrator Guardian— Limitation of Action. When an action for relief on the ground of fraud is brought by children against their mother, who acted as administratrix of their father’s estate, and also as their guardian, but is not brought until eighteen years after the estate was settled, and eight years after the guardian’s account was closed and the youngest child had arrived at- majority, a finding from the evidence that the fraud

Judges: Doster, Ellis, Johnston, Pollock

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.