Burns v. Burns

Citations

• 87 Kan. 19
• 123 P. 720
• 1912 Kan. LEXIS 80

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Finding op Fact — Distinguished from Conclusion of Law. What is designated by the trial court as a conclusion of law will be treated on review as a finding of fact if it appears to be essentially of that character.</p> <p>2. -Same. Where findings show that the evidence presented a question of fact whether a deed was intended as an advancement, a statement found among what are designated as conclusions of law, to the effect that the evidence is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of that intention, will' be regarded as a finding of fact that an advancement was intended.</p> <p>3. Advancements — Common-law Rule — “Hotchpot” Abolished. The common-law rule that one who has received property by way of advancement must bring it into hotchpot, if he wishes to claim a portion of the estate of an intestate as an heir, is abolished by the statute providing in substance that advancements shall be considered as part of the estate, but that one who has received an advancement in excess of his share need not refund any part of it.</p>