OETKEN v. SHELL

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 37,669

Attorney(S)

John A. Etling, of Kinsley, argued the cause, and W.N. Beezley, of Kinsley, and Wm. Easton Hutchison, C.E. Vance, Clifford R. Hope and A.M. Fleming, all of Garden City, were with him on the briefs for the appellants. Logan N. Green, of Garden City, argued the cause, and Roland H. Tate and Daniel R. Hopkins, both of Garden City, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

BEN OETKEN, Appellee, v. G.W. SHELL and JACK SHELL, Appellants.

OPINION ON REHEARING

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PARKER, J.:

For what appeared to be good and sufficient cause a rehearing was granted in this case with a request to counsel for the respective parties that they rebrief and orally argue questions raised with respect to the statute of frauds and trusts in lands arising by implication of law. The pertinent facts and issues involved are fully stated in the initial opinion ( Oetken v. Shell, 168 Kan. 244, 212 P.2d 329) and for that reason need not be repeated in this opinion.

The case was rebriefed and has been reargued by counsel as requested.

Upon examination of the additional briefs and careful consideration of all questions orally presented and argued the court has concluded its original opinion should be adhered to.

It is so ordered.

BEN OETKEN, Appellee, v. G.W. SHELL and JACK SHELL, Appellants.

Comments