TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stone v. Townsend

F. E. Stone v. George W. Townsend, jr.

Stone v. Townsend, 103 P. 114 (Kan. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 3, 1909
Docket
No. 15,941
Citations
103 P. 11480 Kan. 6971909 Kan. LEXIS 141
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Deeds — Undue Influence — Evidence. A finding that a deed was not procured by undue influence was final, the evidence having been oral and conflicting.
Summary
Error from Doniphan district court; Sam Kimble, judge pro tern.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam:

This suit was commenced by F. E. Stone, who was the only heir at law of Lurinda Hamner, deceased. Mrs. Hamner, during her lifetime, conveyed the real estate in controversy to George W. Townsend, and this suit was commenced for the purpose of canceling such conveyance, on the ground that it was obtained by the undue influence of the grantee, used when Mrs. Hamner was mentally incompetent to transact business. •

A large number of witnesses were examined on the trial, which was to the court, without a jury. The evidence presents a sharp conflict upon all the material questions involved. There was an abundance of testimony to justify a decree for either party, nearly two days being consumed in examining witnesses. The court, after a full consideration of the testimony, found in favor of the defendants. This finding was adhered to after a reconsideration upon motion for a new trial. It has been a fixed and uniform rule of this court to accept the decision of a trial court or jury as final upon a question of fact, where the evidence is oral and con *698 flicting. (White v. Bird, 45 Kan. 759 ; Cheney v. Hovey, 56 Kan. 637, 641 .) There seems to be no reason to make an exception in this case.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Johnson v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.135 P. 589 (Kan. 1913)

Most recent

  1. Johnson v. Kansas Natural Gas Co.135 P. 589 (Kan. 1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Cheney v. Hovey, 44 P. 605 (Kan. 1896) 9
White v. Bird, 45 Kan. 759 (1891) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list