Legal Opinion · Dissent

Earnest v. Ruppenthal

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 8, 1939No. 34,186Published

1DissentWedell, J.

There is no question concerning the fact that funeral expenses constitute a first-class claim against a decedent’s estate. (G. S. 1935, 22-701.) True, our statutes contain no express authorization for the purchase of a marker or tombstone as an item of funeral expense. Nor do they make express provisions for other proper items of funeral expense. By the great weight of *641authority a tombstone or monument,, suited to the conditions of .the estate, to identify 'and protect the remains of a deceased person is now regarded as highly proper and as a legitimate item of funeral expense regardless of…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Fairman's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
  2. In re Estate of WeringerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Crapo v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  4. Kennedy v. ParksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
  5. In re the Estate of KempfMichigan Supreme Court · 1884

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API