James v. Young

Decision Date06 May 1922
Docket Number23,762
Citation111 Kan. 310,206 P. 905
PartiesCHARLOTTE T. JAMES, Appellee, v. MARTHA H. YOUNG, as Executrix of the Estate of C. W. James, Deceased, MARTHA H. YOUNG and TOM J. LONG, Appellants
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1922

Appeal from Jefferson district court; MARTIN A. BENDER, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. JURISDICTION OF DISTRICT COURT--Action to Set Aside Probate Court Proceedings--To Cancel Fraudulent Deed by Executrix--Not a Collateral Attack. An independent action is maintainable to set aside probate court proceedings for the sale of real estate and to cancel an executrix's deed conveying the property pursuant thereto when it is shown that the probate proceedings were fraudulently undertaken by the executrix for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of her interest in and title to the property, that the land was sold and conveyed at private sale to a grantee in collusion with the executrix, that the sale was made at a grossly inadequate price, and that the executrix and grantee had a private understanding that the land was to be held by the grantee for the benefit of the executrix or for the benefit of the grantee and executrix jointly.

2. SAME--An Independent Action Stated--Not a Collateral Attack. An independent action in a court of general jurisdiction which seeks to set aside the orders and judgments of a probate court in proceedings fraudulently undertaken and consummated therein by an unfaithful executrix, and to cancel and set aside the executrix's deed to a grantee with whom she was in collusion, is a direct and not a collateral attack upon the proceedings, orders and judgments of the probate court.

3. SAME. Where all the relief to which a defrauded party is entitled cannot be granted by reopening the judgment and proceedings in a court of limited jurisdiction, redress may be sought in an independent action in a court of general jurisdiction; nor is it necessary that the defrauded party seek such relief as the court of limited jurisdiction can give, and seek only the remainder of the relief to which she is entitled in a court of general jurisdiction.

4. FRAUD OF EXECUTRIX--Evidence--Findings of Fact. Evidence examined and held sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding on an issue of fact.

H. N Casebier, of Oskaloosa, for the appellants.

Oscar Raines, of Topeka, and H. T. Phinney, of Oskaloosa, for the appellee.

OPINION

DAWSON, J.:

This was an action by a mother against her daughter for miscellaneous relief on account of fraud.

The plaintiff, a woman of eighty years, and the defendant, her daughter, were the heirs and devisees of the late C. W. James, of Independence, Mo. James was the owner of 292.53 acres of land in Jefferson county, Kansas, which descended in equal shares to mother and daughter. The defendant was appointed executrix of his estate. The plaintiff by a former husband has several sons who, in the usual course of nature, would inherit a considerable share of the James property through their mother.

Plaintiff's petition alleged that defendant and one Tom J. Long entered into collusion to defraud the plaintiff out of her title and interest in the Jefferson county land, and that, pursuant thereto and in bad faith, she caused a proceeding to be instituted in the probate court of Jefferson county to sell the land for the pretended purpose of paying the debts of the C. W. James estate, there being at the time sufficient personal property in the estate to discharge all its debts, that the probate court ordered the land sold, and that defendant fraudulently caused the land to be sold to Tom J. Long for three-fourths of the appraised value, and that such sale had been confirmed and a deed executed and delivered conveying the premises to him, and that such deed had been recorded.

Issues were joined and evidence was presented at length. It was shown that James had bought the land in 1910 for $ 40 per acre and at the time of the trial in 1921 it was worth $ 60 to $ 70 per acre; that it had been appraised at about $ 34.81 per acre; and that defendant declined an offer of $ 40 per acre, and sold it to Tom J. Long at private sale for $ 26.25 per acre. There was evidence tending to show that this sale was not bona fide, and that Tom J. Long and defendant had a private understanding pertaining thereto whereby he was to hold the land for defendant's benefit, or for the joint benefit of himself and defendant.

The trial court found all the issues in favor of plaintiff, set aside the proceedings in the probate court, and canceled and set aside the deed to Tom J. Long and barred him of all rights thereunder.

While this action was pending the defendant was removed from her position as executrix by the probate court in Missouri, and an administrator with the will annexed was appointed in her stead, and this administrator has been made a party to this action and he supports the judgment and the attitude of the plaintiff in this appeal.

The defendants contend that this action is a collateral attack on the order, finding and judgment of the probate court, and that this independent action to set aside the probate court proceedings and to set aside the executor's deed cannot be maintained.

It is perhaps true that practically every grievance alleged by plaintiff except the cancellation of the deed could have been corrected by appropriate proceedings in the probate court but as to the cancellation of the executor's deed to Long we do not see how that could have been accomplished by any corrective action by the probate court. And it cannot be denied that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Boonville Nat. Bank v. Schlotzauer, County Collector
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 27, 1927
    ....... 298 S.W. 741 .         The Mastin Case and the above quotation from it have been recently approved in James v. Young et al., [111 Kan. 310] 206 P. loc. cit. 906. .         Vanfleet's Collateral Attack on Judicial Proceedings, § 2, p. 4, thus ......
  • Swinehart v. Turner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 23, 1924
    ...the action. (Bergin v. Hate, 99 Cal. 52, 33 P. 760; Pico v. Cohn, 91 Cal. 129, 25 Am. St. 159, 25 P. 537, 13 L. R. A. 336; James v. Young, 111 Kan. 310, 206 P. 905; Campbell-Kawannanakoa v. Campbell, 152 Cal. 201, 92 P. It is pleaded the Turners perpetrated such a fraud upon the probate cou......
  • Huls v. Gafford Lumber and Grain Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • February 6, 1926
    ......( Blair v. Blair, supra, 762 et seq.; Leslie v. Manufacturing Co., 102 Kan. 159, 169 P. 193; James. v. Young, 111 Kan. 310, 206 P. 905, and citations, 206. P. 905.) But the difficulty in upholding the present judgment. on the theory of fraud in ......
  • Shuckrow v. Maloney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • October 8, 1938
    ...purpose. Blair v. Blair, supra, 762 et seq., (153 P. 544); Leslie v. Manufacturing Co., 102 Kan. 159, 169 P. 193, L.R.A.1918C, 55; James v. Young, 111 Kan. 310, citations, 206 P. 905. *** "Can the conduct of the lumber company's attorney be properly characterized as extrinsic fraud? To brin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT