Gregg v. Myatt
| Citation | 78 Iowa 703,43 N.W. 760 |
| Parties | GREGG ET AL. v. MYATT ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1889 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
On rehearing. For former opinion, see 42 N. W. Rep. 461.
A petition for rehearing filed in this case demands brief attention. Counsel fail to state in it, with accuracy, the points decided in the foregoing opinion, and assail rather the arguments than the conclusions announced thereon. The remark in the opinion that notice by publication, in the absence of appearance and contest, --is criticised, and its correctness is denied. Counsel assert in their petition for rehearing, with great positiveness and confidence, that “before this case was decided the Iowa reports did not contain one holding such proceedings not to belong to those in rem.” It is a matter of astonishment that the learned counsel, while charging in direct language that the cases on the subject were overlooked by this court, should have failed to discover the quite familiar case of Good v. Norley, 28 Iowa, 188, in which the court was equally divided upon the question whether probate proceedings were adversary or in rem, and the respective views were fully discussed in the light of authorities. The views of the judges holding that these proceedings were adversary and not in rem were approved and concurred in by a unanimous court in Boyles v. Boyles, 37 Iowa, 592, and have not since--for 16 years -- been questioned. It was cited in Washburn v. Carmichael, 32 Iowa, 475. Surely it is not now an open question in this state whether probate proceedings are adversary or in rem. But it will be observed that the rule was stated in the foregoing opinion arguendo, rather than in the announcement of a decision upon the law of the case. The following decisions, not cited in the foregoing opinion, are in accord with the conclusion we reach in the case, and support it: Lorieux v. Keller, 5 Iowa, 196;Fallon v. Chidester, 46 Iowa, 588. The petition for rehearing is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce's Estate, In re
...... Kelly v. Kelly, supra, expressly [245 Iowa 27] overrules Gregg v. Myatt, 78 Iowa 703, 42 N.W. 461, 43 N.W. 760, which objectors cite several times. See also In re Price's Estate, supra, and Edwards v. Smith, 238 ......
-
Edwards v. Smith
...in rem, and not in personam. In this we do not agree. We have repeatedly held to the contrary. Gregg v. Myatt, 78 Iowa 703, 42 N.W. 461,43 N.W. 760.’ That case involved guardianship of both person and estate. The cited Gregg case was one to set aside the probate of a will and did not involv......
-
Kelly v. Kelly
......The only exception to this rule is found in Gregg v. Myatt, 78 Iowa, 703, 42 N. W. 461, 43 N. W. 760, where the court, speaking by Beck, J., seem to distinctly hold that admission of a will to ......
-
Floto v. Floto
......Y. Supp. 144;In re Lawrence's Will, 7 N. J. Eq. 215; Roy v. Segrist, 19 Ala. 810; Boyles v. Boyles, 37 Iowa, 592;Gregg v. Myatt, 78 Iowa, 703, 42 N. W. 461,43 N. W. 760. It is said that some of these heirs had notice that the will was going to be ......