Crohn v. Modern Woodmen of America

• Decision Date: 28 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 1069,145 Mo. App. 158
• Parties: CROHN v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 1069

145 Mo. App. 158

CROHN v. MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 28, 1910.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1910.

1. INSANE PERSONS (§ 43) — APPOINTMENT OF CURATOR — VALIDITY.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3699 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2071), authorizing the probate court to appoint a curator of the estate of a nonresident insane person owning property in the state, a judgment of the probate court appointing a curator, which recites that a trial as to the mental condition of a nonresident was had, that she had due notice of the proceeding, that she was not present, being in a sister state, that an attorney was appointed to represent her, that a trial was had before a jury, who returned a verdict that she possessed property and was incapable of managing her affairs, and that the court thereupon adjudged that she was of unsound mind and that she was possessed of property, and appointed a curator of her estate, is valid on its face.

2. COURTS (§ 36) — PROBATE COURTS — PRESUMPTIONS — JUDGMENTS.

A judgment of the probate court within its original exclusive jurisdiction is entitled to the presumptions protecting the judgments of courts of general jurisdiction, though it is a court of limited jurisdiction.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 695) — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — RECORD.

Where appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence, it is necessary to set out all the evidence in the record, so that the judgment of the court may be had thereon.

4. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 695) — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — RECORD.

An abstract on appeal, attacking the sufficiency of the evidence, which sets out the pleadings and proper record entries, and a bill of exceptions containing only the opinion of appellant's attorney as to what the evidence is, is insufficient to authorize the court to review the evidence.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thos. J. Seehorn, Judge.

Action by R. S. Crohn, curator, against the Modern Woodmen of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Benj. D. Smith and John Sullivan, for appellant. E. H. Gamble and Rosenberger, Taylor & Reed, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

Plaintiff alleges that he is the curator of the estate of Ida Muench, who was so afflicted with insanity as not to be able "to transact business or to protect herself in the ordinary affairs of life," and that he was duly appointed to such curatorship by the probate court of Jackson county. He then further alleges that defendant issued to Berthold Frank Muench a benefit certificate of insurance in the sum of $2,000, payable at his death to said Ida, who was his wife. Refusal of payment is then alleged, and judgment is asked for the amount. Plaintiff prevailed in the trial court, and defendant in due time appealed.

It is first insisted that the judgment of the probate court of Jackson county, appointing plaintiff to the curatorship of the property of Ida Muench, is void on its face, and that therefore it may be attacked in a collateral proceeding. We will concede that as a proposition of law, and proceed to inquire as to the fact. The judgment recites the trial of the inquiry as to the mental condition of Ida Muench, and that she had "had due and legal notice of this proceeding" that she was not present, being in the state of New York, and that an attorney was appointed to represent her; that a trial was had before a jury, who returned a verdict that she was possessed of property and was of "unsound mind and incapable of managing her affairs"; that the court thereupon adjudged that she was a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing her affairs, and that she was possessed of property. Whereupon plaintiff, "the public administrator and ex officio public guardian and curator, be made and is hereby appointed curator of the estate of Ida Muench."

In our opinion the judgment upon its face is valid. It is the result of a proceeding which is authorized by our statute, where there is a nonresident insane person with property in this state. Section 3699, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2071). Though probate courts are of limited jurisdiction, yet in matters wherein their original jurisdiction is exclusive their judgments are...