Appellees presumption in Kansas

2026A district court order dismissing a case without prejudice is not a final decision because '[a] dismissal without prejudice contemplates by its very nature the possibility of refiling an action that is exactly or substantially the same as the action dismissed.' Cohen v. Battaglia, 41 Kan.

1975Here Mr. Prather did not know of the fraud — the fact that he did have a valid contract — when he was told by Derby officials that he had no contract. *119 A case directly in point is Wolf v. Brungardt, 215 Kan. 272 , 524 P. 2d 726 , where the court said: “Where, under all of the circumstances of the case, there is nothing to put the appellees on inquiry they may continue to rely on the representations made by the appellants.

1975Here Mr. Prather did not know of the fraud — the fact that he did have a valid contract — when he was told by Derby officials that he had no contract. *119 A case directly in point is Wolf v. Brungardt, 215 Kan. 272 , 524 P. 2d 726 , where the court said: “Where, under all of the circumstances of the case, there is nothing to put the appellees on inquiry they may continue to rely on the representations made by the appellants.

1974(Wolf v. Weissbeck, 157 Fan 308, 139 P. 2d 398 ; Holmes v. Holt, 93 Kan. 7 , 142 Pac. 369 ; and Rathbone v. Boyd, 30 Kan. 485 , 2 Pac. 664 .) Accordingly, the *724 appellants argue they are entitled to all of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat.

1974(Wolf v. Weissbeck, 157 Fan 308, 139 P. 2d 398 ; Holmes v. Holt, 93 Kan. 7 , 142 Pac. 369 ; and Rathbone v. Boyd, 30 Kan. 485 , 2 Pac. 664 .) Accordingly, the *724 appellants argue they are entitled to all of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat.

1974(Wolf v. Weissbeck, 157 Fan 308, 139 P. 2d 398 ; Holmes v. Holt, 93 Kan. 7 , 142 Pac. 369 ; and Rathbone v. Boyd, 30 Kan. 485 , 2 Pac. 664 .) Accordingly, the *724 appellants argue they are entitled to all of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat.

1974(Wolf v. Weissbeck, 157 Fan 308, 139 P. 2d 398 ; Holmes v. Holt, 93 Kan. 7 , 142 Pac. 369 ; and Rathbone v. Boyd, 30 Kan. 485 , 2 Pac. 664 .) Accordingly, the *724 appellants argue they are entitled to all of the proceeds from the sale of the wheat.

1956They first contend that as appellant did not appeal within two months from the ruling on its demurrer to plaintiffs’ evidence, the time has expired and it may not now be heard, citing Hilliard v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 288 , 70 P. 2d 28 , which was decided in December of 1937.

1956They first contend that as appellant did not appeal within two months from the ruling on its demurrer to plaintiffs’ evidence, the time has expired and it may not now be heard, citing Hilliard v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 146 Kan. 288 , 70 P. 2d 28 , which was decided in December of 1937.

1930H 2.) “Over defendant’s objections, the same witnesses were asked whether similar questions were read to them when they made their applications, to which they answered, ‘No.’ Held, the evidence was admissible for the purpose of throwing whatever light it might cast upon the manner in which the application of the deceased was prepared and signed, the weight to be given to the evidence being for the jury to determine.” (Syl. f 3.) The appellees also rely upon the case of Blades v. Insurance Co., 116 Kan. 120 , 225 Pac. 1082 , which follows the Moreland case, supra. The evidence offered by the ap

1930H 2.) “Over defendant’s objections, the same witnesses were asked whether similar questions were read to them when they made their applications, to which they answered, ‘No.’ Held, the evidence was admissible for the purpose of throwing whatever light it might cast upon the manner in which the application of the deceased was prepared and signed, the weight to be given to the evidence being for the jury to determine.” (Syl. f 3.) The appellees also rely upon the case of Blades v. Insurance Co., 116 Kan. 120 , 225 Pac. 1082 , which follows the Moreland case, supra. The evidence offered by the ap

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.

1912Cas. 940 , 3 Sawy. 353 ; Paty v. Smith, 50 Cal. 153 ; Guynn et al. v. McCauley et al., 32 Ark. 97 ; Dooley v. Bell, 87 Ga. 74 , 13 S. E. 284 ; Wyatt, &c. v. Mansfield’s Heirs, 57 Ky. 779 ; Coon v. Cook, 6 Ind. 268 .) It is contended by the appellees that the presumption should be that Miller was appointed and did qualify and that the burden is upon the appellants to show that such was not the fact, and Howbert v. Heyle, 47 Kan. 58 , 27 Pac. 116 , is cited as authority for the proposition.