ancient rule in Kansas

2022But the district court's assessment of the law is correct—under Kansas law "the ancient presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law." Greer I, 50 Kan.

1991See Hall v. Mullen, 234 Kan. 1031 , Syl. ¶ 3, 678 P.2d 169 (1984); Drake v. Dodsworth, 4 Kan. 159 (1867).

1989In Bariuan v. Bariuan, 186 Kan. 605 , 352 P.2d 29 (1960), we acknowledged that the ancient presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law.

1989In Bariuan v. Bariuan, 186 Kan. 605 , 352 P.2d 29 (1960), we acknowledged that the ancient presumption of the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1960(Kendall v. Elliot, 177 Kan. 630, 281 P. 2d 1088 ; Whitaker v. Douglas, 177 Kan. 154, 157 , 277 P. 2d 641 ; Babcock v. Dose, 179 Kan. 298, 301 , 293 P. 2d 1007 ; Lorey v. Cox, 175 Kan. 66 , 259 P. 2d 194 ; In re Estate of Sims, supra; Snedeger v. Schrader, 183 Kan. 725 , 332 P. 2d 586 .) We stated in the recent case of Board of Education *512 v. Thompson, 185 Kan. 620 , 347 P. 2d 369 , that it is an ancient rule that a demurrer brings before the court only the facts alleged in the pleading to which the demurrer is directed, and the court may not consider any fact not found in the pleading.

1959(Keimig v. Drainage District, 183 Kan. 12, p. 16 , 325 P. 2d 316 .) It should be clearly understood that this is not the situation in an appeal in an action under the workmen’s compensation act.

1959(Keimig v. Drainage District, 183 Kan. 12, p. 16 , 325 P. 2d 316 .) It should be clearly understood that this is not the situation in an appeal in an action under the workmen’s compensation act.

1940Rep. 18, 260 S. W. 186 , defendant was prosecuted for seduction.

1922(Cooper v. Seaverns, 81 Kan. 267 , 105 Pac. 509 ).

1922(Cooper v. Seaverns, 81 Kan. 267 , 105 Pac. 509 ).

1922Antiquity of a rule does not afford a reason for departing from it (Ewing v. Nesbitt, 88 Kan. 708 , 129 Pac. 1131 ), but an ancient rule must be of social service now to command recognition, and the court is not concluded by a common-law rule unless it satisfies the conditions of the statute continuing the common law in force.

1922Antiquity of a rule does not afford a reason for departing from it (Ewing v. Nesbitt, 88 Kan. 708 , 129 Pac. 1131 ), but an ancient rule must be of social service now to command recognition, and the court is not concluded by a common-law rule unless it satisfies the conditions of the statute continuing the common law in force.

1914Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281 , 52 L.

1914Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281 , 52 L.

1906It is also necessary to make a reversioner a party to a bill filed by an owner of a particular estate, when some of the other parties interested in the residue of the premises are the owners of a present interest thereof in fee.” (Page 389.) On the other hand, in the note at page 364 of volume 4 of Kent’s Commentaries, fourteenth edition, it is said that “it was the ancient doctrine under the statute of Henry VIII that no persons could be made parties to a writ of partition, or be affected by it, but such as were entitled to the present possession of their share in severalty.” (See, also, note