Coleman v. Farrar

• Decision Date: 14 November 1892
• Citation: 112 Mo. 54,20 S.W. 441
• Parties: COLEMAN v. FARRAR.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 S.W. 441

112 Mo. 54

COLEMAN v. FARRAR.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 14, 1892.

GUARDIAN OF LUNATIC — ESTOPPEL TO DENY VALIDITY OF INQUISITION — PROBATE COURT — JURISDICTION — SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS — NOTICE — APPEAL — AUTHORIZING WARD TO TRANSACT BUSINESS.

1. Where one files an information alleging the insanity of another, receives an appointment as guardian, gives bond, and takes charge of the estate, he is estopped to deny the validity of the proceedings adjudging his ward insane.

2. Under Const. art. 6, § 34, the general assembly by Laws 1877, p. 229, § 1, established a probate court in each county, with jurisdiction to appoint guardians over persons of unsound mind, and to "settle" their accounts, etc. Rev. St. 1879, § 5825, provides that, "in case of death of such insane person while under guardianship, the power of such guardian shall cease, * * * and the guardian shall immediately settle his accounts, and deliver the estate and effects of his ward to his personal representative." Held, that on the death of the ward the probate court had jurisdiction to render a final judgment on the guardian's account, though St. 1825, § 15, which provided in express terms for a final settlement of the guardian's account by the probate court, was omitted from the revision of 1855, and through Rev. St. 1855, and subsequent revisions, which gave the county courts probate jurisdiction, and "full power to control the guardian of any such insane person in the management of the person and estate and the settlement of his accounts, and to enforce and carry into execution their orders, sentences, and judgments," were entirely repealed in 1877. Sherwood, C. J., and Brace and Macfarlane, JJ., dissenting.

3. The objection that the statute did not intend that the settlement of the guardian's accounts should be final, since no notice to interested parties is provided, is without force, as the court has power to issue such notice when, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, it becomes necessary. Sherwood, C. J., and Brace and Macfarlane, JJ., dissenting.

4. Under Rev. St. 1879, § 1102, which provides that "the circuit courts * * * shall have appellate jurisdiction from the judgments and orders of county courts, probate courts, and justices of the peace in all cases not expressly prohibited by law," etc., an appeal will lie from a judgment of the probate court settling the accounts of a guardian of a lunatic, rendered on the death of his ward. Sherwood, C. J., and Brace and Macfarlane, JJ., dissenting.

5. Under Rev. St. 1879, § 5816, (Rev. St. 1889, § 5542,) which provides that no contract of any person found to be of unsound mind, which shall be made without the consent of his guardian, shall be binding, a guardian cannot authorize his ward to transact business as if he were sane, nor can those who have notice of the adjudication obtain the consent of the guardian to trade with the ward without limitation. Brace, J., dissenting.

In banc. Appeal from circuit court, Johnson county; CHARLES W. SLOAN, Judge.

Thomas E. Coleman, as guardian of the person and estate of James L. Ashby, a lunatic, filed his account with the probate court on the death of his ward. The guardian appealed to the circuit court from the judgment of the probate court settling his accounts, and Samuel H. Farrar, as administrator of the deceased ward, voluntarily entered his appearance in the circuit court, and moved that the judgment of the probate court be affirmed. The motion was overruled, and the case was tried de novo. The guardian appeals from the judgment of the circuit court. Judgment affirmed.

The other facts appear in the following statement by GANTT, J.:

On the 27th of August, 1880, in vacation of the probate court of Johnson county, an information in writing was filed in said court that one James L. Ashby was of unsound mind, and incapable of managing his affairs. On the same day, without notice to said Ashby, and without bringing him before the court, for the reason that he was a raving maniac at the time, an inquiry was had before a jury, who found that the said Ashby was "of unsound mind, and a fit subject for the lunatic asylum." Thereupon the court appointed W. F. Hess guardian of the person and estate of said Ashby, and required him to give bond as such in the sum of $10,000. It appears from the evidence that Ashby was a merchant, farmer, and trader, and doing a pretty extensive business for his locality. After the inquiry he was taken to the asylum, where he remained but a short time. Upon being discharged, he returned home, and resumed control of his business, and continued managing his affairs until the 21st of July, 1884. Hess was Ashby's father-in-law, and resided with Ashby. He never qualified, or exercised any control over Ashby's business, until the latter date, when he gave bond, and afterwards, on the 5th of August, 1884, was killed by Ashby. Afterwards, on the 11th of August, 1884, the appellant, Coleman, was appointed by the probate court guardian and curator of Ashby, gave bond, and took charge of his estate, had the same inventoried and appraised, and proceeded in the discharge of the duties of a guardian and curator of an insane person as to such estate. Afterwards Ashby died, and respondent, Farrar, was appointed administrator of his estate, and afterwards, on the 23d of August, 1886, the said Coleman filed in said court a statement of his account as guardian and curator of the estate of said Ashby, showing that the total amount of the assets of said estate that came into his hands was the sum of $10,535, and that of such assets he had then in his hands uncollected notes and accounts amounting to the sum of $5,052.74; that he had realized in cash from such assets the sum of $5,460.53, and that he had disbursed on account of said estate, as per voucher filed therewith, the sum of $6,489.55. Upon examination of said statement, the probate court found the statement correct as to the amount of the uncollected notes and accounts, and gave him credit therefor; but found him entitled to credit for disbursements only to the amount of $2,501.82, leaving a cash balance due from him to the estate of $2,980.45, which amount the court ordered him "to pay over to the administrator of the estate of the said James Ashby, deceased, and to take his receipt for same, and that he turn over to said administrator the uncollected assets." From this order Coleman appealed to the circuit court, in which court Farrar, the administrator, appeared for the first time, so far as this record shows, and moved that the judgment of the probate court be affirmed upon the record, which motion being overruled, the case was tried de novo, and the account restated by the circuit court; the court finding the amount of total assets and uncollected notes and accounts to be correct as stated in the original account; that the amount of cash received by the guardian was $5,482.26; that the amount of credits to which he was entitled for disbursements was $2,845.46, — leaving a balance due the estate of $2,636.80; and thereupon ordered said guardian to turn over to said Farrar, administrator, the uncollected notes and accounts, and rendered judgment in favor of the administrator against said guardian for said sum of $2,636.80, with 6 per cent. interest from the 23d day of August, 1886. From this judgment the guardian appeals to this court.

Of the disbursements for which the guardian claimed credit the probate court disallowed the sum of $3,987.73, and the circuit court disallowed the sum of $3,644.09. The particular items disallowed by the circuit court are set out in the account stated by said court, and consist of five vouchers disallowed in whole, amounting to the sum of $2,290.32, and five vouchers disallowed in part, to the amount of $953.77, and $400 of the credit of $1,000 allowed by the probate court for services as guardian. The main controversy is upon the disallowance of the credits claimed as per the 10 vouchers, which were obligations contracted by Ashby after the inquiry of lunacy aforesaid, and before Coleman qualified as guardian, and which were paid by him before the death of said Ashby. It appears from the instructions given and refused that the circuit court, in adjusting the account, proceeded upon the theory that the debts incurred by Ashby after the inquiry of lunacy, and paid by the guardian, Coleman, except so far as they were incurred for necessaries for the support of Ashby and his family, were absolutely void, and that the guardian, by paying them, acquired no right to a credit for such payment in his account. The other facts will appear in the further discussion of the case.

S. P. Sparks, for appellant. W. W. Wood, for respondent.

GANTT, J.

1. The appellant, having filed an information in the probate court, alleging that Ashby was insane, and having accepted an appointment as guardian of said Ashby, and entered into a bond for the faithful administration of his estate, and having received into his hands a large estate by virtue of his appointment from said court, is estopped from denying the validity of the proceedings in said court adjudging said Ashby insane. Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo. 271; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 19; Adair v. Adair, 78 Mo. 630.

2. Preliminary to the examination of the exceptions of the appellant to the rulings of the circuit court as to the disallowance of certain credits claimed by the guardian in his account, it is important that we determine whether the probate court of Johnson county had jurisdiction to make a final settlement with the guardian of the lunatic that would have the effect of a final judgment, and be conclusive between the parties interested and concerned herein at law. A careful investigation of the legislation on the subject will suggest many difficulties. The statute of 1825 (page 434, § 13) provided that when any person who had been adjudged insane should show to the probate court tha...