Legal Opinion · Dissent

Russell v. Cogswell

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided April 22, 1940No. 34,239Published

1DissentHarvey, J.

Plaintiff contends there is a fatal hiatus in the statute which in any event would prevent the collection of the tax in question. There is no fatal hiatus in this statute (G. S. 1935, *79979-1501). We print its pertinent portions, including in brackets the clause which, it is argued, it was fatal to omit:

“All property, corporeal or incorporeal, and any interest therein, within the jurisdiction of the state, whether belonging to the inhabitants of the state or not, which shall pass by will or by the laws regulating intestate succession, or by deed, grant or gift made in contemplation of death, or…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Intoxicating-Liquor CasesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
  2. State v. BancroftSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
  3. Tatlow v. BaconSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  4. Jones v. State ex rel. AtherbySupreme Court of Kansas · 1863
  5. Clark v. MurraySupreme Court of Kansas · 1935

11 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