Starr v. Maupin
Starr v. Maupin
82 Kan. 859; 108 P. 848; 1910 Kan. LEXIS 361
Starr v. Maupin
Opinion of the Court
Giving to the evidence the strongest interpretation of which it is susceptible in the plaintiff’s favor, it is legally insufficent to establish want of legal capacity. This being true the action was barred by the statute of limitations. Likewise the charges of fraud and undue influence were not proved. Part of the rejected evidence was improper and the remainder was sufficiently covered by other questions and answers.
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.