Mackey v. Mackey
Citations
- 99 Kan. 433
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Proceedings in Probate Court — No Bar to Partition Suit. The pendency of administration proceedings in the probate court does not necessarily bar a suit in partition in the district court.</p> <p>2. Partition — Accounting between Cotenants — Properly Adjusted. Where the claims against the personal estate in the probate court have been adjudicated they may properly be considered in an incidental accounting which arises in the partition suit.</p> <p>'3. Partition — Unsurping Cotenant — Accounting—Bents. Where upon competent evidence the fact is ascertained by the district court that a cotenant excluded her cotenant from possession of property, the fair rental value of the property may properly be charged against the unsurping cotenant in an incidental accounting which pertains to the partition suit.</p>
Judges: Dawson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Page v. Van TuylSupreme Court of Kansas· 1939-07-08· cited 8×
- Wright v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1935-11-09· cited 7×
- Speer v. ShipleySupreme Court of Kansas· 1939-01-07· cited 7×
- Overlander v. OverlanderSupreme Court of Kansas· 1924-02-09· cited 5×
- Beeching v. BeechingSupreme Court of Kansas· 1932-04-09· cited 2×
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- O'Keefe v. BehrensSupreme Court of Kansas· 1906-04-07· cited 27×
- Thomas v. HughSupreme Court of Kansas· 1909-07-03· cited 12×
- Cribb v. HudsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1916-11-11· cited 9×
- Raynsford v. HolmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 1904-01-09· cited 2×
- Rippe v. WeitersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1915-12-11· cited 2×
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.