Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Pallister v. Colle

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided September 30, 1944No. 36,122Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWedell, J.

I concur in the affirmance of the judgment on the merits if the district court had jurisdiction. I agree with what Mr. Chief Justice Dawson has ably said on the subject of the jurisdiction of the probate court. A few additional observations may be helpful.

The question presented is not whether an opponent of a will may appeal from an order admitting a will to probate. The question is when may he do so. First, it is elementary that a litigant may not invoke the jurisdiction of a court and abandon its jurisdiction before exhausting the relief that court can grant. This is doubly true where that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Egnatic ex rel. Egnatic v. WollardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
  2. Foss v. WilesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
  3. Yeager v. YeagerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
  4. Burns v. DrakeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943
  5. Gustafson v. BowlingSupreme Court of Kansas · 1944

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API