Kelley v. Morrell

Decision Date01 February 1887
Citation29 F. 736
PartiesKELLEY and another v. MORRELL.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Pierce & George, for complainants.

Chas D. Kerr, for defendant.

NELSON J.

This is a bill in form for a partition of real property. The complainants claim an undivided one-third of the real estate described, and allege that the defendant owns the remaining two-thirds. The defendant in his answer claims he is the owner of the entire property. His title to the one-third rests on a sale by the guardian of non-resident minors ordered by the probate court of Morrison county, Minnesota and made pursuant to such license on January 17, 1857, and confirmed February 2d following. A deed was executed and delivered to the purchaser, February 17th. The complainants' title is traced through Dorothy J. Sturgis the mother of Sarah J. Kelley, and through her sister and a brother. To sustain the complainants' title, an attack is made upon the proceedings of the probate court appointing the guardian, and subsequent proceedings resulting in the sale of the minors' interest in the property.

The evidence introduced to show the appointment of a guardian is the following record:

'IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JENETTE A., SARAH JANE, AND JOHN K. STURGIS.
'December Term, A.D. 1856, of the Probate Court of Morrison County, Minnesota Territory, held at Little Falls by CHESSMAN GOULD, Probate Judge.
'Now, on this third day of December, A.D. 1856, comes William Sturgis, of said county and territory, by his petition, and says that he is father of Jenette A., Sarah Jane, and John K. Sturgis, minors; that Jenette A. was twelve years of age on the twenty-fourth day of November, A.D. 1856; that Sarah Jane was ten years of age on the twentieth of October, A.D. 1856; that both are residents of St. Joseph county, state of Michigan; that John K. Sturgis was six years of age on the twenty-third day of March, A.D. 1856, and is a resident of Johnson county, state of Iowa; that said minors are seized of certain real estate; and that, to protect and preserve the legal rights of the said minors, it is necessary that some proper person be appointed guardian of their said estate, and that the said William Sturgis asks that he be appointed such guardian. It is therefore ordered by the court that the said William Sturgis be, and he is hereby, required to file in this office his bond in the penal sum of one thousand dollars, with sureties to be approved by the court. On reading and filing the petition of William Sturgis, asking to be appointed guardian of the estate of Jenette A., Sarah Jane, and John K. Sturgis, minors under the age of fourteen years, and on reading, filing, and approving the bond executed in due form of law to the said minors by the said William Sturgis, with sufficient security, it is ordered that letters of guardianship of the estate of the said minors issue to the said William Sturgis, and that he be appointed such guardian aforesaid, according to the prayer of said petition.'

Copy of the bond filed in the probate court by William Sturgis, guardian of the estate of Jenette A., Sarah Jane, and John K. Sturgis:

'Know all men by these presents that we, William Sturgis, N. Richardson, and T. M. Smith, are held and firmly bound unto Jenette A. Sturgis, Sarah Jane Sturgis, and John K. Sturgis, minors under the age of fourteen years, in the penal sum of one thousand dollars lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said minors, their executors and administrators or assigns, to which payment well and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Fiehe v. R.E. Householder Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 15 Mayo 1929
    ...That situation might have presented a case of error available on direct attack, but it does not render the sale void. See Kelley v. Morrell (C. C.) 29 F. 736. original judgment of this court reversing the judgment of the trial court is hereby vacated, and the judgment of the trial court is ......
  • Murray v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 5 Diciembre 1927
    ...(C. C.) 169 F. 431, George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. McGroarty, 136 U. S. 237, 10 S. Ct. 1017, 34 L. Ed. 346, and Kelley v. Morrell (C. C.) 29 F. 736, are easily distinguishable, nor can they make a rule with reference to this matter different from that announced The allegations of......
  • Eaves v. Mullen
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 2 Marzo 1910
    ...44 P. 1079. J. V. Cabell, J. A. Bass and Cottingham & Bledsoe, for defendant in error.--Citing: Davis v. Caruthers, 22 Okla. 323; Kelly v. Morrel, 29 F. 736; Calloway v. Nicholas, 47 Tex. 331; Whiteman v. Fisger, 74 Ill. 152; Benson v. Benson, 70 Ind. 258; Newbald v. Schlens, 66 Md. 589; Ha......
  • Mosby v. Gisborn
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 16 Agosto 1898
    ...presumed that he had directed it as it was given and that he had ratified and approved it. Van Fleet on Coll. Attack, sec. 835. Kelly v. Morrell, 29 F. 736; Gronfier v. Puymirol, 29 Cal. Nothing is now better settled, and it is universally held upon a bill filed which is an original bill in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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