Work v. Work

Citations

• 90 Kan. 683
• 136 P. 236
• 1913 Kan. LEXIS 289

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Ejectment — Title to Beal Estate — Will—Conflicting Evidence. The title to a tract of land appeared of record in the name of George Z. Work 'at the time of his death. He left a will devising his entire estate to his widow. In thq envelope enclosing the will was found a paper stating that his brother, A. S. Work, owned a half interest in the farm “after he pays for what money I have spent on same as shown by my checks and books.” In an action of ejectment brought by A. S. Work against the devisee the plaintiff was defeated upon the following claims of legal and equitable, ownership:</p> <p>A. That at the time of George Z. Work’s death the farm was a part of the assets of a partnership composed of the plaintiff and George Z. Work, in which they shared equally.</p> <p>B. That the widow was estopped to dispute the plaintiff’s claimed interest in the farm because of- certain conduct of hers upon which he had relied.</p> <p>The testimony took a wide range and covered the subject of compliance with the terms of the writing found with the will. Held, the rule applies that so far as a judgment depends upon conclusions of fact drawn from conflicting evidence, a material part of which consists of oral testimony, it will not be disturbed on appeal.</p> <p>2. Trial — Rejected Evidence — Not Prejudicial Error. Claims of error based upon the refusal of the court to admit evidence offered by the plaintiff considered, and held: The evidence was improper, or inconsequential, or covered by other proof, or not properly presented to the trial court .at the hearing of the motion for a new trial.</p> <p>3. Evidence — Sufficient Description of Real Estate. Under the circumstances stated in the opinion a description of real estate as “476 acres of land near Humboldt, Kansas, that Work Brothers & Co. got from Z. Miller,” is sufficiently definite to identify the land in controversy.</p>