Hill Investment Co. v. Honeywell
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Harper district court; P. B. Gillett, judge.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Doster, C. J. :
Albert. Honey well is a person of unsound mind. O. C. Hooker is the guardian of his person, and property, by appointment of the probate court. The Hill Investment Company recovered a judgment against him. There are funds belonging to the lunatic in the guardian’s hands. The judgment creditor has no lien on these funds, but it brought an action in the district court to subject them to the payment of *350its judgment. May such, an action be maintained in that court for that purpose? The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shoemaker v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1872
- Klemp v. WinterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- Ames v. AmesIllinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Johnson v. CainSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Willis v. FoxWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cabin Valley Mining Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Starke v. StarkeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1942
- Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1928
- Eureka Building & Loan Ass'n v. ShultzSupreme Court of Kansas · 1934
- Shively v. BurrSupreme Court of Kansas · 1943