Freeland v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 31 July 1853 |
| Citation | 18 Mo. 380 |
| Parties | FREELAND, Appellant, v. WILSON, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An administrator who has been ordered by a county or probate court to pay over to the distributees of the estate cannot, under ordinary circumstances, maintain a bill of interpleader against those claiming the benefit of the order. The order is conclusive unless appealed from; if it is general, not naming the distributees, the administrator may obtain a specific order.
2. A bill of interpleader may be maintained against non-residents, under circumstances otherwise appropriate.
Appeal from Callaway Circuit Court.
This was a petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader, filed by Joseph Freeland, administrator of the estate of Jacob Freeland, against Robert J. Wilson and Martha Ann Wilson, who claimed to be two of the distributees of said estate. The petition stated that the plaintiff, as administrator, had been ordered by the Callaway county court to pay to the distributees of said estate, the heirs and legal representatives of said Jacob Freeland, a certain specified sum, and that he had complied with the order, so far as it was safe for him to do so; that there was due to the heirs of Joseph J. Wilson, deceased, the sum of seven hundred dollars, one-half of which sum he had paid to the defendant, Robert J. Wilson, the son of said Joseph J., by his first marriage, and the other half of which was claimed for Martha Ann. as a child of said Joseph J., by his second marriage; and that the said Robert J. claimed the whole amount of the seven hundred dollars, on the ground that the second marriage of said Joseph J. was illegal and void. The order of the county court was not set out, nor did its terms appear from the petition, otherwise than as above stated. The petition was accompanied by an affidavit that the defendants were non-residents, and there was an order of publication. At the return term, the defendant, Martha Ann, answered by her guardian; the other defendant did not appear. The court dismissed the suit, assigning as a reason that it had no jurisdiction, the defendants being non-residents, and the plaintiff appealed.
Ansell, for appellant.
1. This case is not presented in such a manner as to enable us to determine whether or not the mode for obtaining relief, adopted by the appellant, is applicable. Although the distinction between legal and equitable relief is abolished, yet when a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ray v. Ray, 30295.
...judgment of the probate court and the judgment of the probate court is final and conclusive between the parties here. Freeland v. Wilson, 18 Mo. 380; State ex rel. v. Gray, 106 Mo. 526, 17 S.W. 500; State ex rel. Peper v. Reynolds, 286 Mo. 126, 226 S.W. 550; Gorg v. Rutherford, 31 S.W. (2d)......
-
Bramell v. Cole
... ... determined by the final judgment of that court. R. S. 1889, ... secs. 239, 246, 228, and 285; Freeland v. Wilson, 18 ... Mo. 380; Dyer v. Carr's Executor, 18 Mo. 246; ... State to use v. Anthony, 30 Mo.App. 638; In re ... Estate of Elliott, 98 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Reid v. Barrett
...Lucas and his children, who were thus notified as to this land." [Mitchner v. Holmes, 117 Mo. 185, 212, 22 S.W. 1070, 1077.] In Freeland v. Wilson, 18 Mo. 380, the administrator the estate of Freeland filed a petition in the nature of a bill of interpleader against Robert J. Wilson and Mart......
-
State ex rel. Reid v. Barrett
...of plaintiff's lawful right to maintain such bill, service may be had by publication or by personal service upon a nonresident. Freeland v. Wilson, 18 Mo. 380, and authorities cited under 3 (b), supra. (5) The right to pay a note in the jurisdiction in which it is due and payable according ......