payment claim in Kansas

1934The court quoted from Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , syl. ¶ 3, 9 Pac. 218 , viz.: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will be governed by the rules of equity, and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the district court to enforce the payment of a claim against the estate of an intestate, where the statute has provided the relief sought may be obtained in an ordinary legal proceeding in the probate court, and no special ci

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1981Liggins v. May Co., 44 Ohio Misc. 81 , 337 N.E.2d 816 (1975), holds that an assignee, which was engaged in the business of enforcing or attempting to enforce the payment of a claim or debt which arose as a result of a consumer transaction, was engaged in the business of effecting a consumer transaction and was, therefore, a “supplier” under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

1981Liggins v. May Co., 44 Ohio Misc. 81 , 337 N.E.2d 816 (1975), holds that an assignee, which was engaged in the business of enforcing or attempting to enforce the payment of a claim or debt which arose as a result of a consumer transaction, was engaged in the business of effecting a consumer transaction and was, therefore, a “supplier” under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1950It rests these contentions primarily on Superior Grade School District No. 110 v. Rhodes, 147 Kan. 29 , 75 P. 2d 251 (1938); Shouse v. Cherokee County Comm'rs, 151 Kan. 458 , 99 P. 2d 779 (1940); Gridley High School Dist. v. Woodson County Comm’rs, 155 Kan. 407 , 125 P. 2d 383 (1942), and the various budget and cash-basis statutes considered and interpreted therein.

1931The section was interpreted in the case of In re Estate of Wood, 118 Kan. 548 , 235 Pac. 864 , as follows: “A general unsecured creditor of the debtor whose land is sold on execution or order of sale under mortgage foreclosure is not permitted to subject the right of redemption to the payment of his claim.

1931The section was interpreted in the case of In re Estate of Wood, 118 Kan. 548 , 235 Pac. 864 , as follows: “A general unsecured creditor of the debtor whose land is sold on execution or order of sale under mortgage foreclosure is not permitted to subject the right of redemption to the payment of his claim.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928See, also, Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Stratton v. McCandless, 27 Kan. 296 ; Gafford, Guardian, v. Dickinson, Adm’r, 37 Kan. 287, 291 , 15 Pac. 175 ; Hudson v. Barratt, 62 Kan. 137 , 61 Pac. 737 ; Hill v. Honeywell, 65 Kan. 349 , 69 Pac. 334 ; Knox v. Knox, 87 Kan. 381, 385 , 124 Pac. 409 ; Martin v. Duckworth, 96 Kan. 717 , 153 Pac. 505 ; Sparr v. Surety Co., 99 Kan. 481 , 162 Pac. 305 ; Talbot v. Wulf, 122 Kan. 1 , 251 Pac. 438 .) Hill v. Honeywell, supra, Martin v. Duckworth, supra, and Sparr v. Surety Co., supra, were actions against guardians of insane persons.

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1928(Shoemaker v. Brown, 10 Kan. 383 ; Musick v. Beebe, Adm’r, 17 Kan. 47, 53 ; Collamore v. Wilder, 19 Kan. 67, 80 ; Smith v. The Eureka Bank, 24 Kan. 528, 530 ; Ackley v. Tinker, 26 Kan. 485, 487 ; Watkins v. Mullen, 62 Kan. 1, 4 , 61 Pac. 385 ; Loveland v. Hemphill, 122 Kan. 577, 586 , 253 Pac. 606 ; Quinton v. Kendall, 122 Kan. 814, 822 , 253 Pac. 600 .) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , this court said: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will

1927If 5.) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , it was held: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will be governed by the rules of equity, and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the district court to enforce the payment of a claim against the estate of an intestate, where the statute has provided that the relief sought may be obtained in an ordinary legal proceeding in the probate court, and no special circumstance

1927If 5.) In Kothman v. Markson, 34 Kan. 542 , 9 Pac. 218 , it was held: “While the district court has jurisdiction over certain matters relating to the estates of deceased persons, it is an equitable jurisdiction, and in its exercise the court will be governed by the rules of equity, and the plaintiff, therefore, cannot successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the district court to enforce the payment of a claim against the estate of an intestate, where the statute has provided that the relief sought may be obtained in an ordinary legal proceeding in the probate court, and no special circumstance

1927“But no such restraining order will be made simply because the litigation is in a foreign state, or to enforce a mere legal right, even though such right be granted by the statute of this state, but only when there is a manifest equity which compels such restraining order.” (Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) In Zimmerman v. Franke, 34 Kan. 650 , 9 Pac. 747 , the court said: “Where a citizen of this state attempts by a pi’oceeding in attachment or garnishment in another state to subject to the payment of his claim the personal earnings of another citizen of this state, which personal earnings are by the laws of t

1927Another case in which one litigant was restrained from pursuing the same litigation in another state is Gordon v. Munn, 81 Kan. 537 , 106 Pac. 286 .

1927Another case in which one litigant was restrained from pursuing the same litigation in another state is Gordon v. Munn, 81 Kan. 537 , 106 Pac. 286 .

1927In the pertinent and instructive case of McDaniel v. Putnam, 100 Kan. 550 , 164 Pac. 1167 , it was said: “Except by some provision in a will, requiring the keeping open of an estate longer than two years, the statute controls.

1927In the pertinent and instructive case of McDaniel v. Putnam, 100 Kan. 550 , 164 Pac. 1167 , it was said: “Except by some provision in a will, requiring the keeping open of an estate longer than two years, the statute controls.

1916(Burnham v. Citizens Bank, 55 Kan. 545 , 40 Pac. 912 ; Taylor v. Riggs, 8 Kan.

1916(Burnham v. Citizens Bank, 55 Kan. 545 , 40 Pac. 912 ; Taylor v. Riggs, 8 Kan.