Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Shively v. Burr

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 10, 1943No. 35,894Published

1ConcurrenceHarvey, J.

I concur in the conclusion reached in the court’s opinion, but wish to add: Our statute (G. S. 1941 Supp. 59-2239) relating to the kinds or classes of claims or demands to be presented to the probate court, in the estate of a decedent, reads:

“All demands, including demands of the state, against a decedent’s estate, whether due or to become due, whether absolute or contingent, including any demand arising from or out of any statutory liability of decedent or on account of or arising from any liability as surety, guarantor, or indemnitor, and including the individual demands of executors and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Harter v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1903
  2. Hill Investment Co. v. HoneywellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API