modem doctrine in Kansas

1966S. A. 23-201, et seq., as Justice Burch, speaking for the court, explained it,— “. . . irretrievably broke down the common-law theory of marital unity, destroyed the notion of feminine subjection to baronial authority, threw off the restraints of coverture, and installed the modem doctrine of the equality of man and wife before the law.” (Harrington v. Lowe, 73 Kan. 1, 18 , 84 Pac. 570 .) The obvious purpose of the constitutional provision and the implementation thereof by the married womens statutes was to give the wife an equal opportunity to acquire and possess property and to protect her r

1966S. A. 23-201, et seq., as Justice Burch, speaking for the court, explained it,— “. . . irretrievably broke down the common-law theory of marital unity, destroyed the notion of feminine subjection to baronial authority, threw off the restraints of coverture, and installed the modem doctrine of the equality of man and wife before the law.” (Harrington v. Lowe, 73 Kan. 1, 18 , 84 Pac. 570 .) The obvious purpose of the constitutional provision and the implementation thereof by the married womens statutes was to give the wife an equal opportunity to acquire and possess property and to protect her r

2011We are convinced that if the legislature had meant to turn its back on the modem rule and categorically ehminate any duty on the part of the manufacturer to safeguard against open and obvious dangers, it would have done so in a more explicit manner than the language used in K.S.A. 60-3305(c).” 268 Kan. at 779 .

1940Thus in Bank v. Bank, 62 Kan. 788, 795 , 64 Pac. 634 , it was said: “Equity follows a trust fund through any number of changes and allows an owner to reclaim it when and wherever it can be identified.

1940Thus in Bank v. Bank, 62 Kan. 788, 795 , 64 Pac. 634 , it was said: “Equity follows a trust fund through any number of changes and allows an owner to reclaim it when and wherever it can be identified.

1933J. 256.) In the case of Wichita Gas Co. v. Public Service Comm., 126 Kan. 220 , 268 Pac.

1929They especially rely on Love et al. v. Kozy Theatre Company, 193 Ky. 336 , a case where the owners of four principal moving-picture shows conspired together and operated under the management of an interlocking directorate.

1924The question in each case is, Was the alleged injured person, by being put in fear by the other party to the transaction for the purpose of obtaining an advantage over him, deprived of the free exercise of his will power, and was such advantage thereby obtained?” (p. 505.) Also in Milling Co. v. Gas & Electric Co., 115 Kan. 712 , where it was said: “We have traveled far from the common law duress of bodily imprisonment or fear of loss of life or member or of imprisonment, to the modem doctrine of involuntary payment.