general statement rule in Kansas

1946For a general statement of the rule to the effect that there are many exceptions to the full faith and credit clause, perhaps we can turn to no better authority than the late Mr. Chief Justice Stone, from whose opinion in Milwaukee County v. White Co. (which was a tax case), 296 U. S. 268 , 80 L.

1946For a general statement of the rule to the effect that there are many exceptions to the full faith and credit clause, perhaps we can turn to no better authority than the late Mr. Chief Justice Stone, from whose opinion in Milwaukee County v. White Co. (which was a tax case), 296 U. S. 268 , 80 L.

1928“This court has never decided that a lay witness who has had opportunity to observe the conduct of a person whose sanity is called in question may not give an opinion upon the matter without first stating in detail the facts that have been observed, although this has sometimes been assumed in a general statement of the rule. [Cases reviewed.] “In Commercial Travelers v. Barnes, 75 Kan. 720 , the rule was thus stated: “ ‘Nonexpert witnesses shown to have had especial, opportunities of observation are allowed to give opinion evidence of the mental condition of one under investigation in this res

1911But if from 'storm-or flood or other known violent natural cause there be a sudden, visible irruption of the water, whereby the lands upon one side are degraded or submerged or a new channel is cut for the stream, the boundary remains stationary at its former location, and the boundaries of riparian owners. whose lands have been affected remain unchanged.” (P- 521.) In Benson v. Morrow et al., 61 Mo. 345 , it was said: “When land is torn from the banks of this stream (Missouri) and plunged into its turbid waters, its component parts are never after distinguishable — the sand .and clay and soil

1911A general statement of the rule governing such a matter is found in Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kan. 511 , 85 Pac. 763 : “If the change in the position of a navigable river-dividing the territory of two states be by gradual and imperceptible encroachment, or insensible recession, so that the process can not be detected while it is going on, the boundary follows the shifting thread of thé stream.

1911A general statement of the rule governing such a matter is found in Fowler v. Wood, 73 Kan. 511 , 85 Pac. 763 : “If the change in the position of a navigable river-dividing the territory of two states be by gradual and imperceptible encroachment, or insensible recession, so that the process can not be detected while it is going on, the boundary follows the shifting thread of thé stream.

1909(Baughman v. Baughman, 32 Kan. 538, 543 ; The State v. Beuerman, 59 Kan. 586, 589 .) A more accurate expression was formulated in Howard v. Carter, 71 Kan. 85 , in these words: “It is well settled in this state that a non-expert witness may be permitted to give his judgment as to the sane or insane state of another’s mind after having detailed to the jury the extent of his opportunities to deduce a correct opinion and judgment thereon.” (Page 91.) (See, also, Grimshaw v. Kent, 67 Kan. 463 .) A belief that a person is of sound mind could hardly be said to be founded upon any number of specific

1909(Baughman v. Baughman, 32 Kan. 538, 543 ; The State v. Beuerman, 59 Kan. 586, 589 .) A more accurate expression was formulated in Howard v. Carter, 71 Kan. 85 , in these words: “It is well settled in this state that a non-expert witness may be permitted to give his judgment as to the sane or insane state of another’s mind after having detailed to the jury the extent of his opportunities to deduce a correct opinion and judgment thereon.” (Page 91.) (See, also, Grimshaw v. Kent, 67 Kan. 463 .) A belief that a person is of sound mind could hardly be said to be founded upon any number of specific

1909(Baughman v. Baughman, 32 Kan. 538, 543 ; The State v. Beuerman, 59 Kan. 586, 589 .) A more accurate expression was formulated in Howard v. Carter, 71 Kan. 85 , in these words: “It is well settled in this state that a non-expert witness may be permitted to give his judgment as to the sane or insane state of another’s mind after having detailed to the jury the extent of his opportunities to deduce a correct opinion and judgment thereon.” (Page 91.) (See, also, Grimshaw v. Kent, 67 Kan. 463 .) A belief that a person is of sound mind could hardly be said to be founded upon any number of specific

1909(Baughman v. Baughman, 32 Kan. 538, 543 ; The State v. Beuerman, 59 Kan. 586, 589 .) A more accurate expression was formulated in Howard v. Carter, 71 Kan. 85 , in these words: “It is well settled in this state that a non-expert witness may be permitted to give his judgment as to the sane or insane state of another’s mind after having detailed to the jury the extent of his opportunities to deduce a correct opinion and judgment thereon.” (Page 91.) (See, also, Grimshaw v. Kent, 67 Kan. 463 .) A belief that a person is of sound mind could hardly be said to be founded upon any number of specific

1909For illustration, it was approved in Fagnan v. Knox, 66 N. Y. 525 , Erb v. German American Ins.