Skip to main content
· 6/7/1902

Chandler v. Richardson

Citations

  • 65 Kan. 152
  • 69 P. 168
  • 1902 Kan. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Practice, District Court — Ejectment and Partition— Joinder of Causes of Action. One out of possession cannot maintain an action for partition of real property against one in possession claiming title to the entire property, unless he first establishes his title and right of possession to a portion of the property in an action for the recovery of real property, or joins a- cause of action for the recovery of real property with his action for partition. The reason for the rule stated, and Denton v. Eyfe, ante, p. 1, 68 Pac. 1074, followed.</p> <p>2. Wills — Production and Admission to Probate — Election of Widow. Where a will is deposited in the office of the probate judge by the testator, and after his death the will is produced in open court, opened and read in the presence of the devisees of the real property described therein, one of the witnesses to the will, and another, and an entry is made upon the will by the probate judge of the election of the widow to take under the will, and that the will is admitted to probate, held, that the property passed under the will and did not descend to the heirs of the tes- . tator.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that that the trial court erroneously allowed a witness to testify to being satisfied that the alleged victim of a sexual assault told the testifying witness “the truth” about what the defendant had done
  • explaining that opinion testimony regarding a complainant’s veracity is not competent evidence
  • explaining that opinion testimony regarding a complainant's veracity is not competent evidence
  • explaining that opinion testimony regarding a complainant’s veracity is not competent evidence
  • explaining that opinion testimony regarding a complainant’s veracity is not competent evidence
  • explaining that opinion testimony regarding a complainant’s veracity is not competent evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Greene, Pollock, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.