Claxton v. Claxton
| Decision Date | 29 April 1885 |
| Citation | 23 N.W. 310,56 Mich. 557 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | CLAXTON v. CLAXTON. |
Appeal in chancery.
John Ward, for plaintiffs.
Geo. W. Bradford, for defendants and appellants.
This is a bill in equity, filed on behalf of a minor, by his general guardian, for partition of lands. The lands are so situated that partition cannot be effected except through a sale, and this is opposed by the other joint owners. A net revenue of about 9 per centum upon the value is now realized from the lands. The infant is owner of an undivided one-sixth. The case has been heard on a stipulation as to the facts, and decree has been made as prayed. Evidently the court has assumed that partition was matter of right, which may be true enough if the facts are such as to warrant it. But when the rights of infants are in question, the facts cannot be established by admission, (Smith v. Smith, 13 Mich. 258,) and judgment must not pass as of course, but the facts must be proved, and the court, on an examination of them, must determine for itself what the interest of the infant demands; and, in a partition case, it is just as important to inquire into the facts on evidence when the infant is complainant as when he is defendant.
In this case it seems almost certain that the interest of the infant is opposed to a partition if it must be effected by a sale. If, therefore, the facts which are stipulated were proved, the partition should be denied; and, as we cannot suppose a more favorable showing can be made, the decree will not only be reversed, but the bill dismissed.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Queatham v. Modern Woodmen of America
...bound by admissions made by the guardian. [Cochran v. McDowell, 15 Ill. 10; Kidwell v. Ketler, 146 Cal. 12, 79 P. 514; Claxton v. Claxton, 56 Mich. 557, 23 N.W. 310; Quigley v. Roberts, 44 Ill. 503; Schlotterer Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., 75 A.D. 330; Cooper v. Mayhew, 40 Mich. 528; 15 Am. a......
-
Boyd v. Roane
...The guardian could, not bind the infants by consent. No guardian or attorney can make admissions prejudicial to a minor. 47 Ark. 456; 56 Mich. 557. No was made for the minors. 3. A judgment against an infant is irregular, and may be set aside at any time when it appears there was no service......
-
Keel v. Jones
... ... 23 So. 518; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 118; ... Bank v. Johnson, 7 Smed. & M. (Miss.) 613; ... Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 370; Claxton v ... Claxton, 56 Mich. 557; Kirkland v. Texas Express ... Co., 57 Miss. 319; Mackin v. Wilds, 106 La. 1, 30 So ... The ... partition ... ...
-
Queatham v. Modern Woodmen of America
...bound by admissions made by the guardian. Cochran v. McDowell, 15 Ill. 10; Kidwell v. Ketler, 146 Cal. 12, 79 Pac. 514; Claxton v. Claxton, 56 Mich. 557, 23 N. W. 310; Quigley v. Roberts, 44 Ill. 503; Schlotterer v. Brooklyn, etc., Ferry Co., 75 App. Div. 330, 78 N. Y. Supp. 202; Cooper v. ......