Dalton v. Bradley Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 23 September 1918 |
Docket Number | 128 |
Citation | 205 S.W. 695,135 Ark. 392 |
Parties | DALTON v. BRADLEY LUMBER COMPANY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Bradley Chancery Court; Z. T. Wood, Chancellor reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
John Baxter and R. W. Baxter, for appellants.
The order was void as the plaintiffs were under fourteen years of age. It was void on its face. Kirby's Digest, § 1309; 54 Ark. 627; 123 Ark. 389; 185 S.W. 798; 48 Ark. 305.
D. A Bradham, for appellee.
The order was not void on collateral attack. The court had jurisdiction. 100 Ark. 69; 47 Id. 413.
The complaint in this cause alleged that on January 23, 1907, the Calhoun Circuit Court made an order removing the disability of minority of four infants, all of whom were, at the time, under the age of fourteen years, for the purpose of enabling them to convey their interest in a tract of land which they had inherited from their father.
A demurrer to this complaint was sustained on the ground that the judgment of the court removing the disabilities of the minors was not subject to the collateral attack here made on it, and this appeal questions the accuracy of that decision.
The exact point was decided by this court in the case of Doles v. Hilton, 48 Ark. 305, 3 S.W. 193, the syllabus of which case reads as follows: "The statute which authorizes the removal of the disabilities of minors applies only to such minors as are capable of attending to their own business; and an order of the probate court removing the disabilities of a minor under the age of fourteen years is void."
In construing the statute (section 1309, Kirby's Digest) under which the order removing the disability in that case, as well as in this one, was made, Judge Battle, speaking for the court, said:
"It is obvious that the act authorizing the removal of disabilities of minors was only intended to apply to such minors as are capable of transacting their own business."
And he further said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hart v. Wimberly
... ... and that the said heirs recover from Hart $ 192 for pine ... timber sold to Marlar Lumber Company. The court set-off all ... claims of appellant Hart for taxes and improvements against ... 47; McDonald v. Ft. S. & W. Rd. Co., 105 Ark. 5, 150 S.W. 135; ... Dalton v. Bradley Lumber Co., 135 Ark. 392, ... 205 S.W. 695. There is some authority for holding that ... ...
-
Hart v. Wimberly
...attacked collaterally. Waggener v. Lyles, 29 Ark. 47; McDonald v. Ft. S. & W. Rd. Co., 105 Ark. 5, 150 S. W. 135; Dalton v. Bradley Lumber Co., 135 Ark. 392, 205 S. W. 695. There is some authority for holding that an action to obtain a decree declaring a judgment void ab initio is not a col......
-
Tays v. Johnson
... ... to the decision in Doles v. Hilton, ... supra, this court, in Dalton v ... Bradley Lumber Co., 135 Ark. 392, 205 S.W. 695, ... said: "The necessary effect of this ... ...
-
Tays v. Johnson
...Doles v. Hilton, 48 Ark. 305, 3 S. W. 193. Referring to the decision in Doles v. Hilton, supra, this court, in Dalton v. Bradley Lumber Co., 135 Ark. 392, 205 S. W. 695, "The necessary effect of this decision is that no testimony could have been heard or showing made, which would have autho......