Arthur v. Arthur
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by Clara E. Arthur against Adam. Hageman, but he having died before answer, the action was revived against Anna, Samuel and Sarah Arthur, as his heirs, and Samuel Arthur as the administrator of his estate. Samuel and Henry Bealls were joined as parties defendant, against whom the plaintiff prayed incidental relief.
Read the full summary
Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by Clara E. Arthur against Adam. Hageman, but he having died before answer, the action was revived against Anna, Samuel and Sarah Arthur, as his heirs, and Samuel Arthur as the administrator of his estate. Samuel and Henry Bealls were joined as parties defendant, against whom the plaintiff prayed incidental relief. The plaintiff sued as the widow and only heir of Frank Arthur, who was a grandson of Adam Hageman, and alleged that in November, 1878, Hageman had entered into a written contract with her late husband by which the former was to…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Clogston, C.:
This was an action to enforce the specific performance of a contract, which the plaintiff alleged was made by and between Adam Hageman and Frank Arthur, the husband of the plaintiff, which contract was claimed to have been in writing, signed by Hageman and wife. The execution of the contract was denied under oath by the defendants, which raises the issue of its existence. After laying a sufficient foundation as to the loss of the bond, the plaintiff, to establish its contents and execution, offered in evidence the deposition of the plaintiff, which deposition was…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Archer v. United StatesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1900
- Amerine v. AmerineSupreme Court of Kansas · 1955
- Miller v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Stidham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1973
- Terrell v. WichtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914