allowance claim in Kansas

1934In Commissioners of Leavenworth Co. v. Keller, 6 Kan. 510 , it was held: “The allowance of a claim by the county board is not final and conclusive.

1902In the case of Commissioners of Leavenworth v. Keller, 6 Kan. 510 , the law was held to be otherwise.

1983The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it. '" 428 P.2d at 342 .

1983The allowance of the privilege would be a mockery of justice, if either party is to be affected injuriously by it.’ ” 428 P.2d at 342 .

1970The reasoning of the trial court was stated in a memorandum as follows: “About the only decision which is at all enlightening is In re Estate of Schwarz, 197 Kan. 267 , 416 P. 2d 760 , and that strikes down defendant’s contention that the Married Women’s Property Act, specifically K.

1970The reasoning of the trial court was stated in a memorandum as follows: “About the only decision which is at all enlightening is In re Estate of Schwarz, 197 Kan. 267 , 416 P. 2d 760 , and that strikes down defendant’s contention that the Married Women’s Property Act, specifically K.

1951Resort to our decisions reveals the foregoing question was answered in the affirmative shortly after the enactment of the new probate code in Roberts v. Setty, 154 Kan. 505 , 119 P. 2d 539 .

1951Resort to our decisions reveals the foregoing question was answered in the affirmative shortly after the enactment of the new probate code in Roberts v. Setty, 154 Kan. 505 , 119 P. 2d 539 .

1934In Carr v. Catlin, 13 Kan. 393, 404 , in which the opinion was written by Brewer, J., the question before the court was whether an action on a bond, given in connection with administration of a partnership estate, 'could be maintained in the district court without proof of the allowance of the claim in the probate court, or of any settlement in the probate court by the administrator of the partnership estate.

1934(Webster v. Camp, 107 Kan. 235 , 191 Pac. 284 .) The fact that the allowance of the claim against the estate of Mr. Hedin might exhaust his estate does not militate against the allowance of the claim.

1934(Webster v. Camp, 107 Kan. 235 , 191 Pac. 284 .) The fact that the allowance of the claim against the estate of Mr. Hedin might exhaust his estate does not militate against the allowance of the claim.

1929(Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47 .) The allowance of a claim against the executor or administrator, ex parte and without notice to the heirs or devisees, is in a proceeding to subject real estate to the payment of debts, prima jade against the heirs or devisees of its validity and due presentation; that is, it justifies an executor in presenting a petition for the sale of real estate to pay claims so allowed, and justifies the court in making an order for such sale; provided, of course, no heir or devisee who had no notice of the allowance of the claim makes any objection to the legality or

1929(Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47 .) The allowance of a claim against the executor or administrator, ex parte and without notice to the heirs or devisees, is in a proceeding to subject real estate to the payment of debts, prima jade against the heirs or devisees of its validity and due presentation; that is, it justifies an executor in presenting a petition for the sale of real estate to pay claims so allowed, and justifies the court in making an order for such sale; provided, of course, no heir or devisee who had no notice of the allowance of the claim makes any objection to the legality or

1929(Thomas v. Williams, 80 Kan. 632 , 103 Pac. 772 .

1929(Thomas v. Williams, 80 Kan. 632 , 103 Pac. 772 .

1919The plaintiffs cannot question the validity .of the proceedings for laying out the road, for the reasons stated in Wilson v. Cloud County, 90 Kan. 107 , 132 Pac. 1176 , where this court said: “Where a landowner appeals to the district court from the allowance of a claim for damages for the laying out of a .road through his land he thereby affirms that his land has been taken and damaged by the laying out of the road, and he can not afterward be heard to say that the road was not in fact laid out.” (syl.) The judgment is'affirmed.

1919The plaintiffs cannot question the validity .of the proceedings for laying out the road, for the reasons stated in Wilson v. Cloud County, 90 Kan. 107 , 132 Pac. 1176 , where this court said: “Where a landowner appeals to the district court from the allowance of a claim for damages for the laying out of a .road through his land he thereby affirms that his land has been taken and damaged by the laying out of the road, and he can not afterward be heard to say that the road was not in fact laid out.” (syl.) The judgment is'affirmed.

1918The answer to this question is found in the federal statute, which reads: “A discharge in bankruptcy shall release a bankrupt from all of his provable debts.” (30 U. S. Stat. at L., p. 550, ch. 541, § 17.) In Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 U. S. 575, 577 , the court said: “The Bankrupt Act of 1898, provides in § 1, that a ‘discharge’ means ‘the release of a bankrupt from all his debts which are provable in bankruptcy, except such as are excepted by this act.’ ” The plaintiff procured the allowance of its claim against the bankrupt, and submitted to the United States district court its right to recov

1918The heir plausibly contends, somewhat in line with the rule in Sarbach v. Deposit Co., 99 Kan. 29 , 160 Pac. 990 , that she is an interested party, and is therefore entitled to an appeal from the allowance of a claim that will reduce the residue of the estate of which she was entitled to a part.

1915(Roggencamp v. Dobbs, 15 Neb. 620 , 20 N. W. 100 .) It must therefore be held that the motion for a new trial was a nullity and that the allowance of it was error.

1914This principle was stated in Insurance Co. v. Ferguson, 78 Kan. 791 , 98 Pac. 231 , where it was said: “Having then, with full knowledge of all the facts which it is now alleged show a violation of the other conditions, deliberately placed its rejection of the claim on the sole ground of vacancy, the company waived the other grounds of forfeiture afterward pleaded.” (p. 795.) When the demand for the allowance of the claim was made upon the association it could insist upon, or waive, any forfeiture or forfeitures claimed.

1914This principle was stated in Insurance Co. v. Ferguson, 78 Kan. 791 , 98 Pac. 231 , where it was said: “Having then, with full knowledge of all the facts which it is now alleged show a violation of the other conditions, deliberately placed its rejection of the claim on the sole ground of vacancy, the company waived the other grounds of forfeiture afterward pleaded.” (p. 795.) When the demand for the allowance of the claim was made upon the association it could insist upon, or waive, any forfeiture or forfeitures claimed.

1901Ed. 164 ; Railroad Co. v. Kearny County, 58 Kan. 19, 22 .) The allowance of the claim by the board of county commissioners was neither final nor conclusive.

1898In the recent case of Matthewson v. Caldwell, ante, p. 126, 52 Pac. 104 , we held that under the statute an allowance of a claim by an assignee was binding upon him and could.not thereafter be questioned by him in a collateral proceeding.

1895We apprehend that if a proper showing had been made in this case' it would have been the duty of the court to appoint an executor or administrator de bonis non, and he, under the direction of the court, would have proceeded, after the allowance of the claim, to procure assets sufficient to pay said claim, under the authority given by paragraphs 2957 and 2958 id., which read as follows : “If, after the payment of legacies or distributions; it becomes necessary that the same, or any part thereof, be refunded for payment of debts, the court, on application, shall apportion the same among the lega

1889The holder thereof has his election to seek its satisfaction from the personal assets in the hands of the administrator, or to enforce his lien by virtue of his mortgage against the land; which latter course gives him a priority over the general creditor, so far as it relates to the avails of the property which he holds in security.” In Moores v. Ellsworth, 22 Iowa, 299 , the court, in speaking of the effect of filing a claim under § 2421, says: “We can perceive no reason why the allowance of a claim, secured by mortgage, although duly filed and proved before the county court, against the esta