Case Name: Jennie Mackey, Appellant, v. Celia Mackey and Lora Mackey, a minor, etc., Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1917-03-10
Citations: 100 Kan. 63
Docket Number: No. 20,495
Parties: Jennie Mackey, Appellant, v. Celia Mackey and Lora Mackey, a minor, etc., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 63–63

Head Matter:
No. 20,495.
Jennie Mackey, Appellant, v. Celia Mackey and Lora Mackey, a minor, etc., Appellees.
OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Appeal from Atchison district court; William A. Jackson, judge.
Opinion on petition for a rehearing filed March 10, 1917.
Motion allowed.
(For original opinion of affirmance see 99 Kan. 433.)
P. Hayes, of Atchison, for the appellant.
T. A. Moxcey, and Ralph U. Pfouts, both of Atchison, for the appellees.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DAWSON, J.:
In a petition for a rehearing the appellant states that there are still some costs and claims against the estate of Bridget Mackey, undisposed of in the probate court, and that the assets in the hands of the administrator are insufficient to meet them. Appellant asks that our opinion be modified so that provision may be made for taking these into account in the partition suit.
This does not call for any modification of this court's opinion and judgment since the present question was not presented in the original appeal. Still, if there are not sufficient personal assets to satisfy all legitimate claims in the probate court, it seems that it would best serve the interests of the parties and make for economy if they, too, when adjudicated in the próbate court, should be taken into account in rendering final judgment in the partition suit, and appellant's motion is therefore allowed and the district court is advised accordingly.