Twist v. Twist

2 Citing cases

  1. Spicer v. United States

    217 F. Supp. 44 (D. Kan. 1963)   Cited 4 times

    If the testator, under such a test, intended to give his wife only a life estate in his property that passed under the terms and provisions of his Will, then that intention must clearly appear, for it is presumed that he intended to pass to her the full title to the property so bequeathed and devised. (G.S. Kansas, 1949, 67-202; Twist v. Twist, 91 Kan. 803, 139 P. 377.) Furthermore, if the wife received but a life estate, then it must be considered whether she had the power to dispose of the property in any manner that suited her and whether this right was "exercisable in all events."

  2. Dyal v. Brunt

    155 Kan. 141 (Kan. 1942)

    This holding cannot be given force here for two reasons: First, it does not appear at all certain that the trial court attempted to apply that doctrine in reaching its conclusion in this case; but, second, which is much more important, the doctrine there announced has been disapproved repeatedly by subsequent decisions of this court. It was followed specifically in Holt v. Wilson, 82 Kan. 268, 271, 108 P. 87, and was referred to approvingly in Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Stich, 61 Kan. 474, 478, 59 P. 1082; Lohmuller v. Mosher, 74 Kan. 751, 754, 87 P. 1140, 11 Ann.Cas. 469; Hurst v. Weaver, 75 Kan. 758, 763, 90 P. 297; Overly v. Angel, 84 Kan. 259, 263, 113 P. 1041; Thornberry v. Fletcher, 91 Kan. 744, 747, 139 P. 391; Twist v. Twist, 91 Kan. 803, 805, 139 P. 377, and possibly in some other cases. At best the rule followed in the McNutt case was to some extent in conflict with the rule previously announced by the court in Donohue v. Donohue, 54 Kan. 136, 139, 37 P. 998, 999, where it was said: "Every will should be construed in