Gillett v. Camp
Decision Date | 31 October 1856 |
Citation | 23 Mo. 375 |
Parties | GILLETT, Plaintiff in Error, v. CAMP AND WIFE, Defendants in Error. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A proceeding in a probate court of a sister state against a citizen of the state of Missouri, with constructive notice only, is not a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the constitution of the United States.
Error to Warren Circuit Court.
The amended petition in this case is as follows:
To this petition defendants demurred; the court sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff brings the case to this court by writ of error.Hunt, Broadhead, A. D. Glover and Glover & Richardson, for plaintiff in error.
I. Gillett's guardianship ceased on the marriage of his ward Elvira with Camp, and gave him a right to a final settlement of his accounts with her and her husband. (Reeve's Dom. Rel. § 327.)
II. Gillett was not bound to maintain and educate his ward at his own expense, but had a right to be reimbursed therefor out of her estate, she having an estate in Missouri. (Reeve's Dom. Rel. 324.)
III. The Probate Court in Wisconsin that appointed Gillett guardian of said Elvira, had jurisdiction to audit and settle his accounts; and after notice given for the purpose, a final settlement has the force of a judgment. (Caldwell v. Lockbridge, 9 Mo. 362.)
IV. The record of this judgment recites that the defendants were notified, and it is so stated in the opinion. These recitals as to the jurisdiction of the court, as well as those relating to the merits, as they are a part of the record, must be taken as true and conclusive till appealed from or corrected in that court. (16 Mo. 108; 10 How. 371; 19 Mo. 324; Story's Conf. of Laws, § 606; 21 Mo. 557; 1 Stark. on Co. 209.)
V. A final settlement by a guardian, in the proper probate court, after due notice given according to the requirements of the statute for such settlement, is conclusive against the world, whether any of the parties interested were actually present or not, unless it can be impeached for fraud or collusion. . .)
Porter and Saunders, for defendants in error.
I. The proceeding before the Probate Court was ex parte and without any notice to respondents, or appearance or waiver of notice, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stevens v. Oliver
...if such are not "judicial proceedings," as in the case at bar, they are entitled to no consideration in the courts of this State. Gillett v. Camp, 23 Mo. 375; Cox Cox, 101 Mo. 168; Sneed v. Ewing, 28 Ky. 466; In re Nash's Will, 37 Misc. (N. Y.) 706; Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill (Md.) 232; Olney v......
-
Crim v. Crim
...court held that the judgment was not valid here, because the defendants had not been brought into court in any manner whatever. In Gillett v. Camp, 23 Mo. 375, and Latimer v. Railway Co., 43 Mo. 105, the judgment was based solely upon constructive service by publication. In Smith v. Ross, 7......
-
Crim v. Crim
...I, article 4 of the Federal Constitution. Overstreet v. Shannon, 1 Mo. 375; Sallee v. Hays, 3 Mo. 116; Smith v. Ross, 7 Mo. 464; Gillett v. Camp, 23 Mo. 375; Miles v. Jones, 28 Mo. 87; Foote v. 29 Mo. 400; Latimer v. Railroad, 43 Mo. 105; Sevier v. Roddie, 51 Mo. 580; Gilbreath v. Bunce, 65......
-
Crim v. Crim
...court held that the judgment was not valid here because the defendants had not been brought into court in any manner whatever. In Gillett v. Camp, 23 Mo. 375, Latimer v. Railroad, 43 Mo. 105, the judgment was based solely upon constructive service, by publication. In Smith v. Ross, 7 Mo. 46......