Meyer v. Rousseau

• Decision Date: 20 November 1886
• Citation: 2 S.W. 112
• Parties: MEYER <I>v.</I> ROUSSEAU, as Next Friend, etc.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2 S.W. 112

MEYER

v. ROUSSEAU, as Next Friend, etc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 20, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Lincoln county. In chancery.

J. M. & J. G. Taylor, for appellant. J. M. Cunningham, for appellee.

BATTLE, J.

Mary E. Jones and Charles E. Jones were minors, and the owners of certain lands in Lincoln county, and Jonathan Jones was their guardian. In 1875, Jonathan Jones, as such guardian, applied by petition to the Lincoln probate court for an order authorizing and directing him to exchange his wards' lands for certain lands in Jefferson county described in his petition; and the probate court directed him to make the exchange. The exchange was made. Jones, as guardian, conveyed his wards' lands to Gabe Meyer, and Meyer conveyed to the guardian the lands in Jefferson county. Jones reported his proceedings to the probate court, and they were approved by the court; and Meyer took possession of the lands conveyed to him. Jones having died, Mary E. and Charles E. Jones, by their next friend, brought this action against Meyer to recover the lands conveyed to him by their late guardian. The defendant having answered, claiming under the exchange, the action, on motion of plaintiffs, was changed into an equitable proceeding. Plaintiffs thereupon filed an amended complaint, in which they set forth, among other things, the facts above stated, and asked that the order of the Lincoln probate court authorizing the exchange, and all orders and judgments confirming or attempting to confirm the exchange, be set aside and decreed void, and for other specific relief set forth in the prayer of the complaint, and for general relief. The defendant answered this complaint. On the final hearing the court below set aside the exchange, and declared the same void, and granted other relief not necessary to state here; and defendant appealed. The only question of importance in this case is, did the Lincoln probate court have authority to make the order empowering Jones, as guardian, to make the exchange of lands?

In Myrick v. Jacks, 33 Ark. 428, Mr. Justice EAKIN, in delivering the opinion of this court, said: "Courts of probate have, by the statute, been intrusted with some limited powers over the estate of minors in the hands of administrators and guardians, and within the scope of those statutory powers they are certainly entitled to all presumptions accorded to superior courts of record. But they had no such jurisdiction by common law, and beyond the limits given they have none now. When they proceed to do a thing which, by proper proceedings and upon a proper case made, they are authorized to do, it will be presumed they have acted correctly; or if the proceedings have been irregular, or the conditions of jurisdiction not strictly fulfilled, it is error to be corrected on appeal or certiorari. But if they undertake to make an order not authorized under any circumstances, although they may have jurisdiction over the same property for other purposes, it is void." Young v. Lorain, 11 Ill. 636; Grignon's Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. 338; Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 402; Fitzgibbon v. Lake, 29 Ill. 176; Gager v. Henry, 5 Sawy. 243, 244. In Guynn v. McCauley, 32 Ark. 97, this court held that "the probate court has no jurisdiction to authorize a father to sell the land of his minor child until he is appointed guardian," and qualified as such. And in Summers v. Howard, 33 Ark. 490, it was held that the probate court cannot authorize a curator to sell a minor's estate, and that a sale so made is void. The reason of the decision in both these cases is the statute did not authorize such sales.

It is contended by appellant that the Lincoln probate court had a right to order the...