Paulin v. Parker
Supreme Court of Kansas
1DissentAlleN, J.
It is well settled that creditors may not meddle with an estate by garnishment proceedings after appointment of an administrator and before the probate court has released control by an order of final distribution (McCarthy Hardware Co. v. Foust, 118 Kan. 431, 235 Pac. 867; Citizens State Bank v. Moore, 121 Kan. 628, 249 Pac. 587). In Sherman v. Havens, 94 Kan. 654, 666, 146 Pac. 1030, the reason for the rule was stated:
“The rule exempting executors and administrators from garnishment process before the final order of distribution rests upon the assumption that it cannot be known until the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Markham v. WatermanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
- Atchison v. FrancisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Sherman v. HavensSupreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Koelliker v. DenkingerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1938
- Poole v. FrenchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.