Neuber v. Shoel
Court of Appeals of Kansas
Error from Geary district court; O. L. Moore, judge. STATEMENT. On January 24, 1876, Charles Neuber, the husband of the defendant in error, executed his will, by which he devised the land in controversy to the plaintiff in error, reserving to his wife during her lifetime the use and occupation of the dwelling-house on said land and one-sixth of the crop raised thereon.
Read the full summary
Error from Geary district court; O. L. Moore, judge. STATEMENT. On January 24, 1876, Charles Neuber, the husband of the defendant in error, executed his will, by which he devised the land in controversy to the plaintiff in error, reserving to his wife during her lifetime the use and occupation of the dwelling-house on said land and one-sixth of the crop raised thereon. Indorsed on the will was the written consent of his wife, and her signature to said consent was attested by one witness only. Charles Neuber died in July, 1894, owning at the time 160 acres of land in Riley county and 40 acres…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wells, J.:
There are no formal assignments of error in plaintiff in error’s brief, and the main question for our consideration is, Do the findings of fact sustain the judgment rendered by the court below? Of this general question there are three subdivisions : (1) Is the action of the probate court res judicata as to the rights of the parties under the will? (2) Are the findings of the district court res judicata as to the rights of the parties to the land? (3) If the doctrine of res judicata does not apply in either of the foregoing cases, did the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hentig v. ReddenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Armstrong v. LettySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1922
- Jack v. HookerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905