Allen v. Hannum
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Nemaha District Court. Action for partition, brought by Olive Allen, as plaintiff, against Joseph Hannum, as executor, etc., and Henry Allen, Isaac ~W. Howe, Thomas Keller, Francis Hannum, Florence Hannum, Josephine Hannum, Julia Hannum, and Marietta Hannum, as defendants. The questions involved arose under the last will and testament of Samuel Allen, deceased, the father of said Henry Allen.
Read the full summary
Error from Nemaha District Court. Action for partition, brought by Olive Allen, as plaintiff, against Joseph Hannum, as executor, etc., and Henry Allen, Isaac ~W. Howe, Thomas Keller, Francis Hannum, Florence Hannum, Josephine Hannum, Julia Hannum, and Marietta Hannum, as defendants. The questions involved arose under the last will and testament of Samuel Allen, deceased, the father of said Henry Allen. The district court, at the April Term 1874, gave judgment, directing partition to be made, assigning one-half the lands in controversy to the plaintiff, Olive Allen, (widow of said Samuel,)…
1Opinion of the Court
*626The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
This was an action for partition of real estate brought by Olive Allen, against Joseph Hannum, Henry Allen, and seven others. Olive Allen got all she asked for in the court below, and of course she has no right to now complain in this court. But has Henry Allen, the other plaintiff in error, any right to complain? The facts of the case seem to be about as follows: The property in controversy originally belonged to Samuel Allen. He made a will, devising and bequeathing all his estate (after payment of debts and funeral expenses,) to his…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Lilly v. MenkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Latta v. BrownTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Lilly v. MenkeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Tomb v. BardoSupreme Court of Kansas · 1941
- Ashelford v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.