In re Reeve's Guardianship

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtESCHWEILER
CitationIn re Reeve's Guardianship, 176 Wis. 579, 186 N.W. 736 (Wis. 1922)
Decision Date07 February 1922
PartiesIN RE REEVE'S GUARDIANSHIP. IN RE FRAKER ET AL. IN RE ANDERSON.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Winnebago County Court; Fred Beglinger, Judge.

In the matter of the guardianship of Lucas T. Reeve. Petition by Mary R. Fraker and another for cancellation of proceedings, in which they paid guardian certain amount for release of ward's claim to interest in certain land and for the refund of amount paid, opposed by George B. Simmons, as guardian, and Charles H. Forward, as guardian ad litem, for Lucas T. Reeve, and petition by Amelia E. Anderson for modification of the final decree and order of distribution in the matter of the estate of George K. Reeve, deceased, and for allowance to her, as the sole heir at law of said decedent, of the amount that had been assigned to Lucas T. Reeve as heir at law. From judgment rendered, Charles H. Forward, guardian ad litem, and Amelia E. Anderson appeal. Affirmed on appeal of the former, and reversed on the appeal of the latter.

Owen and Rosenberry, JJ., dissenting.

In 1891 one Thomas T. Reeve, resident of Oshkosh, died, leaving three adult children. In November, 1892, his will was duly probated. It provided, among other things, that a certain piece of real estate in the city of Oshkosh, and designated herein as 161 Main street, should be held in trust for the benefit of his widow during her lifetime (she dying in April, 1905); upon her death a similar trust during the life of his son George K. Reeve; upon the death of the son leaving issue him surviving then outright to such issue; in default of such issue to his residuary legatees, his two daughters.

In 1893 the said George K. Reeve married one Amelia E. Johnson. A child was born to them in 1897, which died in 1898. January 17, 1902, George K. Reeve died intestate, leaving only a piece of real estate described as No. 17 Main street, in said city of Oshkosh.

February 1, 1902, his widow, Amelia E. Reeve, made petition for administration of his estate, reciting that he left him surviving as the only heirs his widow and one son, named Lucas T. Reeve, then about four months of age. In March letters of administration were granted to Mr. John Harrington. In June, 1906, Amelia E. Reeve makes petition to the county court for Winnebago county for the appointment of a guardian for Lucas T. Reeve, alleged to be then of the age of four years and eight months, and, on the 21st of June, George B. Simmons was appointed and qualified as guardian.

On August 14, 1906, a final decree was entered in the estate of George K. Reeve. The personal property, being rents from the real property amounting to about $280, was assigned one-third thereof to the widow, Amelia E. Reeve, as her dower interest, the balance to George B. Simmons as general guardian of said Lucas T. Reeve. The real estate, namely, No. 17 Main street, was assigned to the said Lucas T. Reeve as minor heir of the deceased, subject to the unassigned dower rights of the said Amelia E. Reeve.

In 1907 Caroline E. Fraker, one of the daughters of Thomas T. Reeve, died, leaving as her sole heir Mary R. Fraker. In February, 1908, the daughter, Mary E. Miller, and the granddaughter, Mary R. Fraker, of Thomas T. Reeve commenced an action in the circuit court for Winnebago county against Amelia E. Reeve, Lucas T. Reeve, and others to quiet plaintiff's title to No. 161 Main street, devised by the will of Thomas T. Reeve, asserting that they had taken possession of said 161 Main street upon the death of the widow of Thomas T. Reeve and collected the rents therefrom, and also asserting that the said Amelia E. Reeve had fraudulently pretended and represented that there was in fact a son born to her and the said George K. Reeve in the petitions for administration of the estate of George K. Reeve and the guardianship of said Lucas T. Reeve, as above recited, and alleging that as a matter of fact there was no such child and for that reason there had been no vesting of the title to said 161 Main street, upon the death of the widow of Thomas T. Reeve, in any other than said plaintiffs.

It appears that service of such complaint and summons, together with a subpœna and notice of the proposed examination of said Amelia E. Reeve, was made upon her in the city of Oshkosh. She at that time was a nonresident of Wisconsin, and had been such for most of the time since the death of George K. Reeve. The proposed examination appears to have been continued from time to time, but she never was examined in said proceedings and nothing further seems to have been done therein.

Negotiations were had between the interested parties, and then application was made by Amelia E. Reeve to the county court for a sale of the interest of Lucas T. Reeve in said 161 Main street, reciting, among other things, that she still claims that Lucas T. Reeve is the issue of said George K. Reeve and his sole heir, that she has no desire to litigate the facts in regard thereto, and is not willing to appear or give evidence in the action instituted on February 28, 1908, recited above. The guardian made a similar application, and, by agreement between the parties concerned, a sale of the interest of the alleged Lucas T. Reeve as heir was then made to the said Mary E. Miller and Mary R. Fraker for $4,000 and $500 paid by them in addition thereto to the said guardian as a settlement for all claims and demands on behalf of said alleged infant for the rents and income received by the said Mary E. Miller and Mary R. Fraker during their possession of said premises after the death of the widow of Thomas T. Reeve. Such proceedings were confirmed in the county court in April, 1908.

Pursuant to applications allowances were made from time to time by the county court, out of the funds in the hands of the guardian, of sums to Amelia E. Reeve as and for the support, care, and maintenance of said Lucas T. Reeve; such payments continuing until the year 1916, at which time there had been so paid to her $1,950. In January, 1914, the property, No. 17 Main street, left by George K. Reeve, was sold, upon proceedings not in any way questioned here so far as the title to the real estate is concerned, by Mr. Simmons, as guardian, for $7,000, out of which sum Amelia E. Reeve was awarded $1,272, which was accepted by her as and for her dower interest in said property, and the balance thereof remained in the possession of the said guardian.

Some time in 1918, after a consultation by Mrs. Reeve, who in the meantime had married one Frank P. Anderson, with Mr. Louis Reuscher, an attorney at law of Cincinnati, Ohio, it was disclosed to the persons interested that Amelia E. Reeve, now Anderson, now asserts that there had been no such child as Lucas T. Reeve born to her and the said George K. Reeve, and that the infant which she had brought to Oshkosh and presented to Mr. Simmons at the time of the petition for and the appointment of him as guardian of the alleged Lucas T. Reeve in 1906 was, as a matter of fact, one Marshall Beamon, the son of one William Beamon and Laura Beamon, his wife, and whom the said Amelia E. Reeve at the time had procured from an asylum in Chicago, where such child had been left by his parents.

Upon learning this, and in December 1919, Mary E. Miller and Mary R. Fraker petitioned the court below to have the proceedings of 1908 upon which they had paid the $4,500 to Mr. Simmons, as guardian, for a release of all claims of the alleged Lucas T. Reeve to 161 Main street, to which, but for the claim of the existence of Lucas T. Reeve as issue of George K. Reeve, they would have absolute title, canceled and held as naught, thereby relieving their title to such property from any cloud thereon by reason of the assertion of the existence of such alleged issue of George K. Reeve, and also for a refund of the $4,500 so paid by them, together with accrued interest thereon, basing their claim for relief upon the facts disclosed from the admissions of Mrs. Anderson of the fraud that she had perpetrated in falsely asserting the existence of issue of George K. Reeve. The guardian appeared in opposition to such petition, put the petitioners to their proofs as to the facts alleged, and asserted that any claim by them for such refund was barred by the statute of limitations and also on the ground that the petitioners are estopped from so and now asserting such claims. Charles H. Forward, who had been appointed guardian ad litem for the alleged minor, Lucas T. Reeve, also appeared and took a similar position.

Amelia E. Anderson, formerly Reeve, appeared and by verified pleading admitted that there was no issue of George K. Reeve surviving him, and that she had used the child Marshall Beamon for the purpose of representing him to be such alleged issue under the name of Lucas T. Reeve. She asked that the final decree and order of distribution made on August 14, 1906, whereby the residue of said estate of George K. Reeve, was assigned to the said Lucas T. Reeve, be modified, and that the balance of the money in the hands of George B. Simmons as guardian, after the repayment to Mary E. Miller and Mary R. Fraker of the amount to be allowed them, should be paid over to her as sole heir at law of the said George K. Reeve, deceased. To this prayer for relief on behalf of Amelia E. Anderson the guardian ad litem, Charles H. Forward, asserted that the same was barred by the statute of limitations, and prayed for the dismissal of such cross-complaint or demand.

Upon the hearing in the county court upon this matter the testimony of Amelia E. Anderson, taken by deposition, was received, and in such testimony she again under oath asserted that there had been no child born to her and the said George K. Reeve as had been theretofore alleged by her, and that the child presented by her at Oshkosh in 1906 was said Marshall Beamon. Photographs had been taken of a then neighbor's child and of Marshall Beamon while...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
19 cases
  • Morsman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 21, 1937
    ...the existence of a ward is a necessary jurisdictional fact for the validity of an order appointing a guardian. In re Reeve's Guardianship, 176 Wis. 579, 186 N.W. 736, 742. To say that because a guardian may be appointed for an unborn child and that for that reason a present trust exists alt......
  • Beck v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • April 17, 1928
    ... ... Guardianship of Reeve, 176 Wis. 579, 590, 186 N. W. 736;Waters v. Stickney, 12 Allen (94 Mass.) 15, 90 Am. Dec. 122;Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Withington, 229 ... ...
  • Pugh v. Fowlie (In re Penney's Estate)
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1937
    ... ...         In Guardianship of Reeve, 176 Wis. 579, 186 N.W. 736, there was a devise to testator's widow for life, thereafter to his son for life, and upon the death of the ... ...
  • Hatzl's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1964
    ... ... fact without which a probate court cannot render a final judgment assigning a share in an estate to such heir, on the authority of Guardianship of Reeve (1922), 176 Wis. 579, 186 N.W. 736. That case held that the existence of a ward was a jurisdictional fact without which guardianship ... ...
  • Get Started for Free