Dudding v. Pitman
| Decision Date | 25 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 20070 |
| Citation | 138 Okla. 222,280 P. 801,1929 OK 259 |
| Parties | DUDDING v. PITMAN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Judgment--Judgment Conferring Majority Rights on Minor Without Extraterritorial Effect.
A judgment of a court of record conferring majority rights upon a minor does not have extraterritorial effect.
2. Same--Comity Between States in Construction of Statutes and Decisions.
Comity between nations and states is not the right of one state to have its statutes and judicial decisions followed in another state, but a courtesy, as it were, extended by one state to another in the construction of statutes and decisions of a foreign state if not in contravention of its own statutes and decisions.
3. Courts--In Accounting Proceeding Guardian Held Estopped to Deny Authority of Court Appointing Him.
D. was appointed guardian of the estate of P. by the county court of Muskogee county, Okla. D. transferred funds of his ward, by check, to a trustee in the state of Kansas, without authority by the court appointing him. D. denied authority of the domestic court in accounting, for reason of a subsequent foreign judgment removing the disability of nonage of his ward, as to property located in Kansas. Held, D. is estopped to deny authority of the court creating his position as guardian.
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; W. J. Crump, Judge.
In the matter of the guardianship of Wilson S. Pitman, a minor Action in accounting and removal of guardian, John R. Dudding. Guardian surcharged and removed, and he appealed to district court, where judgment was affirmed. Appeal by guardian to Supreme Court. Affirmed.
Archibald Bonds, for plaintiff in error.
Leahy & Brewster, for defendant in error.
¶1 John R. Dudding, plaintiff in error, was appointed guardian of the estate of Wilson S. Pitman, a minor, December 31, 1924, and removed as such guardian May 2, 1928, by order of the county court of Muskogee county.
¶2 On December 30, 1926, that county court, upon the petition of the Commercial National Bank of Independence, Kan., ordered that certain personal property then held by Dudding as such guardian be surrendered and delivered to that bank. The basis of that order was the fact that Pitman, the minor, had removed to Kansas, and the bank had been appointed guardian in Wilson county, Kan. The subject-matter of the order was "all notes, stocks, bonds, money and personal property of every kind and description which he now has on hand."
¶3 Thereafter, as before, Dudding continued to act as guardian, and he collected royalties and rents arising from the minor's estate located in Oklahoma. Dudding, as guardian, filed his annual report for the period January 1, 1927, to December 31, 1927, and amongst other items of expenditure, listed as "miscellaneous expenses" the following:
¶4 Thereafter, and on March 28, 1928, the county court issued to Dudding, as guardian, a citation, commanding him to appear on April 5, 1928, to show cause why he should not be removed as guardian for making unwarranted disbursements, wastefulness, and gross mismanagement.
¶6 It being also shown that Pitman, a minor, had entered into a trust agreement with the Commercial National Bank of Independence, Kan.
¶7 Dudding moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was overruled. The cause proceeded to trial, and on May 2, 1928, the court found and adjudged that Dudding, guardian, on June 28, 1927, had withdrawn from funds of the minor the sum of $ 1,955, as evidenced by check payable to order of Wilson S Pitman and the Commercial National Bank of Independence, Kan., trustee, and that on December 28, 1927, he had withdrawn the sum of $ 1,230, upon a check to same payees; that the aggregate of said checks, $ 3,185, was withdrawn from the funds of said ward without authority of court, and that the same should be surcharged against the guardian and his bondsmen. The surcharge was made, the guardian was removed, and a successor appointed.
¶8 Upon appeal to the district court the judgment of the county court was in all respects affirmed.
¶9 This appeal is presented from the order overruling motion for new trial on the district court's judgment.
¶10 Plaintiff in error, Dudding, now says:
¶11 The contention of plaintiff in error is:
¶12 Loftus v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 133 Pa. 97, 19 A. 347, 7 L. R. A. 313:
"The settled general rule is that the validity of a transfer of personal property is to be determined by the law of the domicile of the owner."
¶13 Consequently it is urged the situs of the personal property of Pitman was divested from the jurisdiction of the courts of Oklahoma and vested in the proper court of Kansas. Full faith and credit will be given to acts and judgments of a court of a sister state. Harding v. Harding, 198 U.S. 317, 49 L. Ed. 1066, 25 S. Ct. 679; 23 Cyc. 1345.
¶14 The principle is well settled that a "voluntary conveyance of personal" property "good by the law of the place where it was made, passes title wheresoever the 'property' may be situated." Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N.Y. 207; Edgerly v. Bush, 81 N.Y. 199; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Aldrich, 26 N.Y. 92; Minor et al. v. Cardwell, 37 Mo. 350.
¶15 In 5 R. C. L. 927, the rule is stated:
¶16 Thus far we have cited practically all cases relied upon by plaintiff in error, and we have set out the reasoning underlying his contention. These are weighty principles. These are sound cases where the facts are applicable. We would not hesitate to follow them, but for the peculiar situation here presented by the facts in the case at bar.
¶17 We further quote from plaintiff's brief:
¶18 Kersey v. McDougal, 79 Okla. 53, 191 P. 594, lays down the rule that:
"* * * The order of the court transferring the personal property of the minor to the foreign guardian and the filing with the county court of the receipt therefor of the foreign guardian of the absent ward did not suspend the power of the local guardian over the residue of the property of the estate of the minor remaining in Oklahoma in any particular. * * *"
¶19 Section 6583, C. O. S. 1921, provides:
"In all cases the court making the appointment of a guardian has exclusive jurisdiction to control him in the management and disposition of the person and property of his ward."
¶20 The rule stated in Ex parte Spurrier, 111 Okla. 242, 238 P. 956, is:
"When a county court has acquired jurisdiction of a minor child, and appoints a guardian of its person and property, the minor becomes a charge of the state, and subject to the control of the court, and a guardian cannot delegate his powers of guardianship to another, nor dispose of the custody and control of his ward by assignment without the approval of the county court."
¶21 We hold the guardian is estopped to deny the authority of the county court of Muskogee county to control him in the disbursement of funds of the minor, for the reason that the guardian will not be permitted to renounce or disregard the authority creating him.
¶22 Such is the rule in Anderson v. Anderson, 45 Okla. 653, 146 P. 709:
"One who has been appointed guardian, and who has acted and received funds as such, is estopped to avoid liability therefor by denying the guardianship relation; and if he has done acts as guardian, he is estopped to deny the validity of such acts or to assert claims in conflict therewith."
¶23 As pointed out in the cited case, following the rule in California and New York, the guardian, by accepting the appointment and the estate, placed himself within the jurisdiction of that court and became an officer of that court and was responsible to it for the faithful performance of his trust, and he is forever...
To continue reading
Request your trial