Dutcher v. Hill
| Decision Date | 31 January 1860 |
| Parties | DUTCHER, Defendant in Error, v. HILL, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In proceedings under the act relating to insane persons to subject the person and estate of an alleged lunatic to control of a guardian and the county court, the alleged insane person should have notice of the proceedings, or the county court should cause him to be brought before the court, or it should appear upon the record of such proceedings why such notice was not given or such attendance required.
2. Where a guardian of an insane person has been appointed by a county court, and the guardian has under the sanction of the court sold the land of such insane person, the validity of this sale can not be called in question in a collateral proceeding on the ground that notice of the inquisition was not given to the alleged lunatic.
3. Where a guardian of an insane person has been appointed by the county court, and the lunatic afterwards applies to the court to be relieved from the custody of the guardian on the ground that he has been restored to reason, this will be taken as an admission that the proceedings against him were valid, and he can not afterwards object in a collateral proceeding that the inquisition was irregular and void for want of notice to him.
Error to Moniteau Circuit Court.
This was an action in the nature of an action in ejectment for the possession of certain lands in Moniteau county. The plaintiff is Charles Dutcher. The defendant claimed title by virtue of a deed executed by one Reuben Dutcher as guardian of the plaintiff. The defendant read in evidence the proceedings of the county court upon the inquisition into the sanity of the plaintiff, and the sale of the land. It did not appear that Charles Dutcher had notice of the inquisition. In all other respects the proceedings were regular, and the sale was regular and had the sanction of the county court. It was in evidence that after this sale and before the institution of this suit, Charles Dutcher, the plaintiff, had in due form of law been declared of sound mind, and restored to the management of his own affairs.
The defendant asked the court to give the following declaration of law: “Although the plaintiff may not have had notice of the proceedings had in the probate court of Moniteau county, by which he was declared of unsound mind and incapable of managing his own affairs, still, if said proceedings were regular in all other respects, the finding of the court ought to be for the defendant.” The court refused so to declare; there were no other instructions asked. The court found a verdict for the plaintiff.
Parsons, for plaintiff in error.
I. No notice was required. (1 Ashm. 82; Southcote's case, 1 Ambl. 112; Ex parte Hall, 7 Ves. 264.) The court should have given the instruction asked.
Ross & Ewing, for defendant in error.
I. The proceedings declaring Charles Dutcher an insane person are void for want of jurisdiction. There was no notice given. Notice must be given in all judicial proceedings. (See Blackwell on Tax Titles, 251.) The notice must appear by the record. (20 Mo. 238; 14 Mo. 83; 7 Mo. 463.) The validity of the proceedings can be questioned collaterally. (10 Mo. 771; 1 Burr. 447; 3 Denio, 595; 3 Ala. 287; 2 Engl. 390; 15 Wend. 374.) The court properly refused the instruction.
The plaintiff was found to be a lunatic under the statute concerning insane persons. A guardian was thereupon appointed for his person and estate, who, proceeding in conformity to law, procured an order for the sale of the real estate of the lunatic for the payment of his debts. His land was accordingly sold and conveyed by the guardian, whose proceedings were approved. This suit is brought by the lunatic to recover a portion of the land thus sold. It is an action of ejectment, and is founded on the ground that there was no notice to the lunatic of the inquisition by which he was found such.
The statute is silent on the subject of notice to the lunatic; but directs that, in proceedings under it, the county court may, in its discretion, cause the person alleged to be of unsound mind to be brought before the court. Whether this provision is a substitute for the notice and was designed to leave it to the discretion of the court whether the alleged lunatic should have notice and should be present at the making of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sutton v. Anderson
...plaintiff was not bound by an order made April 14, 1927, during the pendency of the case. Montgomery v. Gahagan, 246 Mo. 317; Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo. 271; Smith v. Ohio Millers Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.), 6 S.W. (2d) 920; Dean v. Railroad Co., 229 Mo. 425; Gibson v. Rees, 50 Ill. 383; Jeffrey v. R......
-
Sutton v. Anderson
... ... 1927, during the pendency of the case. Montgomery v ... Gahagan, 246 Mo. 317; Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo ... 271; Smith v. Ohio Millers Fire Ins. Co. (Mo.), 6 ... S.W.2d 920; Dean v. Railroad Co., 229 Mo. 425; ... Gibson v. Rees, ... ...
-
Edmondson v. Jones
... ... This ... case and those cited in support of the conclusion we have ... stated are easily distinguishable from De Soto Co. v ... Hill, 188 Ala. 667, 65 So. 988, where the court declined ... to interfere because of newly discovered evidence, and the ... case of Hendley v ... without notice in Eslava v. Lapretre, supra ... We ... cannot agree to the estoppel enforced in Dutcher v ... Hill, 29 Mo. 271, 77 Am.Dec. 572, as applicable in ... denial of complainant's constitutional right. In that ... case the subsequent ... ...
-
Hunt v. Searcy
...of 1889 (R. S. 1889, chap. 86, sec. 5515), and is the same in the revision of 1899. [R. S. 1899, chap. 39, sec. 3652.] The case of Dutcher v. Hill, 29 Mo. 271, arose under statute of 1855, which vested the court with a discretion to bring in the alleged insane person, and the court, per Sco......