Jack v. Hooker
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Reno district court; H. Fierce, judge pro tem. STATEMENT. This was a suit to determine the interests and rights of the parties herein to a tract of land in Reno county.
Read the full summary
Error from Reno district court; H. Fierce, judge pro tem. STATEMENT. This was a suit to determine the interests and rights of the parties herein to a tract of land in Reno county. In a petition filed by Minnie A. Hooker against Mary T. Jack and Albert R. Bowles she alleged that on January 7, 1904, her father, Robert Jack, was the owner of a quarter-section of land in Reno county, and on that day he made a will devising the land to her, subject to a life-estate in her stepmother, Mary T. Jack. The will, which was duly signed and attested, read: “Plevna, Kan., January 7, 1904. “I, Robert Jack,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnston, C. J.:
The principal question presented for decision is, Did Mary T. Jack give a valid consent to take the allowance made for her in the will instead of the share she might have taken under the statute? In the statute relating to wills it is enacted that “no man while married shall bequeath away from his wife more than one-half of his property, nor shall any woman while married bequeath away from her husband more than one-half of her property. But either may consent in writing, executed in the presence of two witnesses, that the other may…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hafer v. HaferSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- King v. MollohanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- Sill v. SillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Neuber v. ShoelCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1898
3Cited by13 opinions
- Skinner v. SkinnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Bacus v. BurnsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Board of Regents v. EllisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1949
- Langham v. GrayCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
- Weisner v. WeisnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.