Leach v. Misters

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the CourtBEARD, JUSTICE.
Citation79 P. 28,13 Wyo. 239
Decision Date06 January 1905
PartiesLEACH v. MISTERS

79 P. 28

13 Wyo. 239

LEACH
v.
MISTERS

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 6, 1905


ERROR to the District Court, Natrona County, HON. CHARLES W. BRAMEL, Judge.

The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Reversed.

E. D. Norton, for plaintiff in error.

The court had no jurisdiction to render the judgment appealed from. Jurisdiction is the power and authority constitutionally conferred upon a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law or to award the remedies thereby provided upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to a tribunal for decision and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves or who are brought before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. A court cannot adjudicate upon a subject not falling within its province, neither can it go beyond the issues or pass upon a matter not submitted or intended to be submitted for its determination. The subject matter of jurisdiction is to be found in the allegations of the litigants. (1 Black on Judgments, Secs. 215, 216; Mfg. Co. v. Beyer, 17 Am. St. 143; 12 Ency. Law, 301; Asso. v. McGowan, 59 Ga. 811; Blair v. Bank, 8 Mo. 313; Ex parte Cohen, 6 Cal. 318.) A judgment is void where the court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter; and such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or neglect. (Springer v. Shavender, 54 Am. St. 708; Pope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85.) There must be a properly framed petition or other pleading showing a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court before it can lawfully proceed to adjudicate. There must be power in the court conferred by law to render a judgment on the pleadings, along the lines prayed for, or it will be inoperative and void.

If it be conceded that the court sitting in probate had authority to act at all in this case, then its adjudication could only be as to whether or not an administrator should be appointed, and no question was raised by the pleadings or the evidence that would authorize a personal judgment against the appellant. The appellant was in no sense a party to the proceeding when the judgment was rendered, and she cannot be bound by the judgment against her. For the reasons stated the judgment is absolutely void. (Thomas v. People, 107 Ill. 517; Keeler v. Stead, 7 Am. St. 323.) A court has no right to act upon mere notions or whims as to what is right regardless of the questions submitted for adjudication. A court of equity must be guided by established...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Harrington's Estate, Matter of, No. 5606
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 22, 1982
    ...as between the estate, the heirs or devisees and a third person may not be tried in probate proceedings. See also Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28 (1905). In Estate of Blaney, supra, this court expressly reaffirmed the jurisdictional limitations upon the probate court as recognized i......
  • State ex rel. Peterson v. Dunlap
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 3, 1916
    ...Kan. App. 283, 62 P. 731; In re Currier's Estate, 19 Colo. App. 245, 74 P. 340; Falke v. Terry, 32 Colo. 85, 75 P. 425; Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28; Meredith v. Scallion, 51 Ark. 361, 11 S.W. 516, 3 L. R. A. 812-815.) MORGAN, J. Budge, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, C. J., Dissenting. O......
  • In re Barrett's Estate, 750
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 3, 1914
    ...reviewed on error an order appointing an administrator, without its jurisdiction to do so having been questioned. (Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28; Rice v. Tilton, 13 Wyo. 420, 80 P. 828). Also an order removing an executor. (Hecht v. Carey, 13 Wyo. 154, 78 P. 705, 110 Am. St. Rep. ......
  • In re Day's Estate, No. 8669.
    • United States
    • March 20, 1947
    ...211, 78 P. 63,6 Ann. Cas. 874;Goodin v. Casselman, 51 N.D. 543, 200 N.W. 94;Harrington v. Jones, 53 Or. 237, 99 P. 935;Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28. In the case at bar, respondent's petition to the district court sitting in probate disclosed upon its face the fact that petitioner......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Harrington's Estate, Matter of, No. 5606
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 22, 1982
    ...as between the estate, the heirs or devisees and a third person may not be tried in probate proceedings. See also Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28 (1905). In Estate of Blaney, supra, this court expressly reaffirmed the jurisdictional limitations upon the probate court as recognized i......
  • State ex rel. Peterson v. Dunlap
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • April 3, 1916
    ...Kan. App. 283, 62 P. 731; In re Currier's Estate, 19 Colo. App. 245, 74 P. 340; Falke v. Terry, 32 Colo. 85, 75 P. 425; Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28; Meredith v. Scallion, 51 Ark. 361, 11 S.W. 516, 3 L. R. A. 812-815.) MORGAN, J. Budge, J., concurs. SULLIVAN, C. J., Dissenting. O......
  • In re Barrett's Estate, 750
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 3, 1914
    ...reviewed on error an order appointing an administrator, without its jurisdiction to do so having been questioned. (Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28; Rice v. Tilton, 13 Wyo. 420, 80 P. 828). Also an order removing an executor. (Hecht v. Carey, 13 Wyo. 154, 78 P. 705, 110 Am. St. Rep. ......
  • In re Day's Estate, No. 8669.
    • United States
    • March 20, 1947
    ...211, 78 P. 63,6 Ann. Cas. 874;Goodin v. Casselman, 51 N.D. 543, 200 N.W. 94;Harrington v. Jones, 53 Or. 237, 99 P. 935;Leach v. Misters, 13 Wyo. 239, 79 P. 28. In the case at bar, respondent's petition to the district court sitting in probate disclosed upon its face the fact that petitioner......
  • 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