preferred claim in Kansas

1933It is disclosed that the bank clipped the coupons from the bonds and placed the proceeds of the same to the accounts of the several owners, but the certificates showed that the bonds as deposited were to be returned “on surrender of the certificates properly indorsed.” The principle to be applied to special deposits, where a preference is claimed as against funds which passed into the hands of the receiver, is briefly stated in State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463 , 218 Pac. 1000 , as follows: “Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the receiver of an insolvent bank, it i

1933It is disclosed that the bank clipped the coupons from the bonds and placed the proceeds of the same to the accounts of the several owners, but the certificates showed that the bonds as deposited were to be returned “on surrender of the certificates properly indorsed.” The principle to be applied to special deposits, where a preference is claimed as against funds which passed into the hands of the receiver, is briefly stated in State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463 , 218 Pac. 1000 , as follows: “Before a claim can be allowed as a preferred claim against the receiver of an insolvent bank, it i

1922(Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bank, 109 Kan. 772 , 204 Pac. 992 .) The judgment is therefore modified with the direction that the entire amount, $3,875, be allowed and adjudged to be a preferred claim to be paid in full out of the assets in the hands of the receiver.

1922(Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bank, 109 Kan. 772 , 204 Pac. 992 .) The judgment is therefore modified with the direction that the entire amount, $3,875, be allowed and adjudged to be a preferred claim to be paid in full out of the assets in the hands of the receiver.

1933The underlying principles governing the allowance of such a preferred claim, and the reasons for allowing it as such, are well stated in Investment Co. v. Bank, 98 Kan. 412 , 158 Pac. 68 , and commented upon again in Schoen v. Johnson, 134 Kan. 612 , 7 P. 2d 117 .

1933The underlying principles governing the allowance of such a preferred claim, and the reasons for allowing it as such, are well stated in Investment Co. v. Bank, 98 Kan. 412 , 158 Pac. 68 , and commented upon again in Schoen v. Johnson, 134 Kan. 612 , 7 P. 2d 117 .

1933The underlying principles governing the allowance of such a preferred claim, and the reasons for allowing it as such, are well stated in Investment Co. v. Bank, 98 Kan. 412 , 158 Pac. 68 , and commented upon again in Schoen v. Johnson, 134 Kan. 612 , 7 P. 2d 117 .

1933The underlying principles governing the allowance of such a preferred claim, and the reasons for allowing it as such, are well stated in Investment Co. v. Bank, 98 Kan. 412 , 158 Pac. 68 , and commented upon again in Schoen v. Johnson, 134 Kan. 612 , 7 P. 2d 117 .

1932The syllabus in the latter case is as follows: “In an action by a depositor against the receiver of an insolvent bank to determine the question of preference, the record considered and ■ held, the relationship established by the plaintiff and the bank was that of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent, nor trustees and cestui que trust.” The second paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Kirby v. Wait, 120 Kan. 400 , 243 Pac. 1058 , cited by appellant, is as follows: “Money placed in a bank as a trust fund to pay a certain debt cannot, after the failure of the bank and the ap

1932The syllabus in the latter case is as follows: “In an action by a depositor against the receiver of an insolvent bank to determine the question of preference, the record considered and ■ held, the relationship established by the plaintiff and the bank was that of debtor and creditor and not that of principal and agent, nor trustees and cestui que trust.” The second paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Kirby v. Wait, 120 Kan. 400 , 243 Pac. 1058 , cited by appellant, is as follows: “Money placed in a bank as a trust fund to pay a certain debt cannot, after the failure of the bank and the ap

2022In re Guardianship of B.H., 309 Kan. 1097 , 1104, 442 P.3d 457 (2019); see also In re P.J., 56 Kan.

2021See State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 158, 165 , 169 P.3d 1096 (2007) (defendant may make reasoned decision to forgo defenses ostensibly supported in the evidence that are legally or factually inconsistent with a preferred defense); State v. Busse, 231 Kan. 108, 111-12 , 642 P.2d 972 (1982) (defendant waived statutory and constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him when he deliberately withdrew from preliminary hearing on advice of counsel apparently to avoid having those witnesses identify him; preliminary hearing testimony could then be admitted at trial when one of those witnesses b

2021See State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 158, 165 , 169 P.3d 1096 (2007) (defendant may make reasoned decision to forgo defenses ostensibly supported in the evidence that are legally or factually inconsistent with a preferred defense); State v. Busse, 231 Kan. 108, 111-12 , 642 P.2d 972 (1982) (defendant waived statutory and constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him when he deliberately withdrew from preliminary hearing on advice of counsel apparently to avoid having those witnesses identify him; preliminary hearing testimony could then be admitted at trial when one of those witnesses b

2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim.

2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim.

2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”).

2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”).

1980In Steele et al. v. State Bank et al., 116 Kan. 510 , 227 Pac. 352 (1924), a person defrauded in a land sale was allowed a preferred claim over general creditors of a bank against land transferred to the bank as a result of fraud.

1980In Steele et al. v. State Bank et al., 116 Kan. 510 , 227 Pac. 352 (1924), a person defrauded in a land sale was allowed a preferred claim over general creditors of a bank against land transferred to the bank as a result of fraud.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934(See Snodgrass v. Carlson, 117 Kan. 353, 232 Pac. 241 , and State, ex rel., v. Riverside Drainage District, 123 Kan. 46 , syl. ¶ 5, 254 Pac. 366 .) The proof shows that-the plaintiff is entitled to a common claim against the defendant bank, but fails to show that it is entitled to a preferred claim, and the judgment of the -lower court allowing the preference is erroneous.

1934(See Snodgrass v. Carlson, 117 Kan. 353, 232 Pac. 241 , and State, ex rel., v. Riverside Drainage District, 123 Kan. 46 , syl. ¶ 5, 254 Pac. 366 .) The proof shows that-the plaintiff is entitled to a common claim against the defendant bank, but fails to show that it is entitled to a preferred claim, and the judgment of the -lower court allowing the preference is erroneous.

1934(See Snodgrass v. Carlson, 117 Kan. 353, 232 Pac. 241 , and State, ex rel., v. Riverside Drainage District, 123 Kan. 46 , syl. ¶ 5, 254 Pac. 366 .) The proof shows that-the plaintiff is entitled to a common claim against the defendant bank, but fails to show that it is entitled to a preferred claim, and the judgment of the -lower court allowing the preference is erroneous.

1934(See Snodgrass v. Carlson, 117 Kan. 353, 232 Pac. 241 , and State, ex rel., v. Riverside Drainage District, 123 Kan. 46 , syl. ¶ 5, 254 Pac. 366 .) The proof shows that-the plaintiff is entitled to a common claim against the defendant bank, but fails to show that it is entitled to a preferred claim, and the judgment of the -lower court allowing the preference is erroneous.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1934While there has been much difference of judicial opinion on the subject, some of which still remains, that is now the generally accepted view.” (Citing cases.) (p. 773.) This test was approved in Kesl v. Bank, 109 Kan. 776 , 204 Pac. 994 ; Secrest v. Ladd, Receiver, 112 Kan. 23 , 209 Pac. 824 ; Nelson v. Paxton, Receiver, 113 Kan. 394 , 214 Pac. 784 ; State Bank v. State Bank, 114 Kan. 463, 468 , 218 Pac. 1000 ; Raker-Evans Grain Co. v. Ricord, 126 Kan. 107 , 267 Pac. 14 ; Matzen v. Johnson, 127 Kan. 139 , 272 Pac. 164 ; Griffith v. Burlington State Bank, 128 Kan. 279 , 277 Pac. 42 ; Schoen v.

1933Other cases in accord with it are Clark v. Bank, 72 Kan. 1 , 82 Pac. 582 ; State Bank v. State Bank, supra; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 119 Kan. 198 , 237 Pac. 652 ; El Dorado Nat’l Bank v. Butler County State Bank, 120 Kan. 109 , 242 Pac. 475 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 120 Kan. 706 , 244 Pac. 1039 ; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank, 122 Kan. 483 , 252 Pac. 247 ; Colorado & S. Rly.

1933Other cases in accord with it are Clark v. Bank, 72 Kan. 1 , 82 Pac. 582 ; State Bank v. State Bank, supra; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 119 Kan. 198 , 237 Pac. 652 ; El Dorado Nat’l Bank v. Butler County State Bank, 120 Kan. 109 , 242 Pac. 475 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 120 Kan. 706 , 244 Pac. 1039 ; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank, 122 Kan. 483 , 252 Pac. 247 ; Colorado & S. Rly.

1933Other cases in accord with it are Clark v. Bank, 72 Kan. 1 , 82 Pac. 582 ; State Bank v. State Bank, supra; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 119 Kan. 198 , 237 Pac. 652 ; El Dorado Nat’l Bank v. Butler County State Bank, 120 Kan. 109 , 242 Pac. 475 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 120 Kan. 706 , 244 Pac. 1039 ; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank, 122 Kan. 483 , 252 Pac. 247 ; Colorado & S. Rly.

1933Other cases in accord with it are Clark v. Bank, 72 Kan. 1 , 82 Pac. 582 ; State Bank v. State Bank, supra; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 119 Kan. 198 , 237 Pac. 652 ; El Dorado Nat’l Bank v. Butler County State Bank, 120 Kan. 109 , 242 Pac. 475 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 120 Kan. 706 , 244 Pac. 1039 ; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank, 122 Kan. 483 , 252 Pac. 247 ; Colorado & S. Rly.

1933Other cases in accord with it are Clark v. Bank, 72 Kan. 1 , 82 Pac. 582 ; State Bank v. State Bank, supra; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 119 Kan. 198 , 237 Pac. 652 ; El Dorado Nat’l Bank v. Butler County State Bank, 120 Kan. 109 , 242 Pac. 475 ; First Nat’l Bank v. Farmers State Bank, 120 Kan. 706 , 244 Pac. 1039 ; Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. First State Bank, 122 Kan. 483 , 252 Pac. 247 ; Colorado & S. Rly.