universally recognized rule in Kansas

1948In the Moore case, supra, this court said: “The principal administration, to which all others are subordinate is at the domicile of the intestate, and the universally recognized rule of law is that the succession to and distribution of personal estate is governed by the law of the place where the intestate was domiciled at the time of his death. “ ‘The original administrator, therefore, with letters taken out at the place of the domicile, is invested with the title to all the personal property of the deceased, for the purpose of collecting the effects of the estate, paying the debts, and makin

1900It was said, in Moore, Adm’x, v. Jordon, 36 Kan. 274 , 13 Pac. 339 : ‘ ‘ The principal administration, to which all others are subordinate, is at the domicile of the intestate, and the universally recognized rule of law is that the succession to and distribution of personal estate is governed by the laws of the place where the intestate was domiciled at the time of his death.” The supreme court of the United States, in Wilkins v. Ellett, 9 Wall. 740 , 19 L.

1949Jur. p. 457 , Pleading, § 238, it is said: “It is a universally recognized rule for which citation of authority is hardly needed that for the purpose of testing the sufficiency in law of the facts stated in a pleading, a demurrer thereto admits or confesses the truth of all the properly pleaded facts averred . . .” In support Sedan State Bank v. Stephenson, 150 Kan. 210 , 92 P. 2d 1 , is cited.

1949Jur. p. 457 , Pleading, § 238, it is said: “It is a universally recognized rule for which citation of authority is hardly needed that for the purpose of testing the sufficiency in law of the facts stated in a pleading, a demurrer thereto admits or confesses the truth of all the properly pleaded facts averred . . .” In support Sedan State Bank v. Stephenson, 150 Kan. 210 , 92 P. 2d 1 , is cited.

1927“Second: Should the court hold such evidence competent, was there sufficient evidence offered to establish such reservation?” The appellant contends for the negative of both of these propositions upon the universally recognized doctrine so well expressed in Guaranty Co. v. Grabske, 111 Kan. 271 , 207 Pac. 322 , from which he quotes as follows: “It is elementary that a written contract, in itself complete and free from ambiguity, cannot be altered or enlarged by showing prior or contemporaneous oral agreements where the writing purports to be a full expression of the agreement.” (p. 272.) This

1927“Second: Should the court hold such evidence competent, was there sufficient evidence offered to establish such reservation?” The appellant contends for the negative of both of these propositions upon the universally recognized doctrine so well expressed in Guaranty Co. v. Grabske, 111 Kan. 271 , 207 Pac. 322 , from which he quotes as follows: “It is elementary that a written contract, in itself complete and free from ambiguity, cannot be altered or enlarged by showing prior or contemporaneous oral agreements where the writing purports to be a full expression of the agreement.” (p. 272.) This

1917If it can be applied in this case, where a comparatively small amount is involved, it must be applied where millions are involved, thus threatening the very existence of the government, “The doctrine is well settled that no laches can be imputed to the government, and by' the 'same reasoning which excuses it from laches, and on the same grounds, it should not be affected by the negligence or even willfulness of any one of its officials.” (p. 438.) In Josselyn v. Stone and Matthews, 28 Miss. 753 , the rule was thus stated: “It is a universally recognized rule that no laches is to be imputed to

1897Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 165 ; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Carithers v. Weaver, 7 id. 110 ; Green v. Barker et al., 47 Neb. 934 , 66 N. W.

1897The Supreme Court in Sherry v. Sampson ( 11 Kan. 611 ), says: “And a person who has no interest in the land will not be allowed to raise any question as to whether the probate judge has made the deed to the proper person or not.’’ This is the universally recognized rule, as I read the cases and the text writers; it is the reasonable rule, the ethical rule, the logical rule.

1897Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 165 ; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Carithers v. Weaver, 7 id. 110 ; Green v. Barker et al., 47 Neb. 934 , 66 N. W.

1897Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 165 ; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Carithers v. Weaver, 7 id. 110 ; Green v. Barker et al., 47 Neb. 934 , 66 N. W.

1897Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 165 ; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Carithers v. Weaver, 7 id. 110 ; Green v. Barker et al., 47 Neb. 934 , 66 N. W.

1897Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, § 165 ; Smelting Company v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 ; Houck v. Kelsey, 17 Kan. 333 ; Carithers v. Weaver, 7 id. 110 ; Green v. Barker et al., 47 Neb. 934 , 66 N. W.