Morgan v. Potter

Decision Date18 March 1895
Docket NumberNo. 690,690
Citation39 L.Ed. 670,157 U.S. 195,15 S.Ct. 590
PartiesMORGAN et al. v. POTTER et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

T. F. Garves, for appellants.

Wm. H. Rossington and Chas. Blood Smith, for appellees.

Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a bill in equity, filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas by 'J. E. Potter, guardian of Robert Morgan, a resident and citizen of the state of Kentucky and county of Warren, and Sarah Lee Williams, as next friend of said Robert, a resident and citizen of the same county and state,' 'against Henry Morgan, guardian of said Robert, and Jacob Campbell and M. A. Arnott, all of whom are residents and citizens of the county of Ottawa and state of Kansas,' to set aside the appointment, by a court of the county of Ottawa and state of Kansas, of Henry Morgan as guardian of the estate of Robert, as having been obtained by false and fraudulent representations that Robert's residence was in that county, and that his mother consented to the appointment; and to require him to account for the property of his ward, fraudulently omitted in the inventory and accounts filed by him in that court, and to turn over all the ward's property to Potter, as his guardian, appointed in the county of Warren and state of Kentucky; and to obtain judgment against him, and against Campbell and Arnott as sureties upon his guardianship bond, for the sums found due; and for further relief.

Robert Morgan, described in the bill as 'a nonresident of' the state of Kansas, was the minor son of Joseph Morgan and Sarah Lee Morgan, his wife, who, as the bill alleged, after the father's death in Texas in 1883, moved with her infant son to the state of Kansas, and thence, in October, 1886, to Warren county, in the state of Kentucky, and since continually resided there with him, and in February, 1887, was there married to one Williams, a resident of that county.

The principal defendant, Henry Morgan, was appointed February 14, 1887, by the probate court of the county of Ottawa, in the state of Kansas, guardian of the estate of Robert Morgan, and took an oath and gave bond as such, and afterwards filed in that court an inventory and annual accounts, which he claimed to be true, and which were not excepted to in that court, nor their correctness otherwise challenged by the ward or by any one acting in his behalf. He was not shown to have failed or refused to comply with any order of that court in relation to his guardianship; and when this bill was filed the minor's estate was undergoing administration in that court, and no final settlement or accounting had een had there between the guardian and the ward. The other defendants were the sureties on the guardianship bond.

The plaintiffs were Potter and the mother of Robert Mor- gan. Potter sued as his guardian, appointed, as the bill alleged, by a court of the county of Warren, in the state of Kentucky, having jurisdiction of his person and estate, with the consent of his mother and her husband. His mother sued as his next friend.

The case was heard in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas upon pleadings and proofs, and a decree entered for the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the circuit court of appeals, which made a certificate to this court, setting forth the above facts, and others not material to be here stated, and requesting the instruction of this court upon several questions.

The first question certified is, 'Does the foregoing bill of complaint state a case entitling the complainants named therein, or either of them, to any form of relief in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas?'

The authority of a guardian, like that of an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Thames v. State of Mississippi
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 27 d4 Fevereiro d4 1941
    ...open the flood gates of fraud and injustice." 24 Mississippi Power Company v. Archibald, Miss., 196 So. 760. 25 Morgan v. Potter, 157 U.S. 195, 15 S.Ct. 590, 39 L.Ed. 670. 26 It is a nominal party because the action was brought in the name of the State of Mississippi on the relation of the ......
  • Padilla v. Rumsfeld
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 18 d4 Dezembro d4 2003
    ..."resembles an attorney, or a guardian ad litem, by whom a suit is brought or defended in behalf of another." Morgan v. Potter, 157 U.S. 195, 198, 15 S.Ct. 590, 39 L.Ed. 670 (1895). The availability of next friend status is, however, subject to significant Decisions applying the habeas corpu......
  • Whitmore v. Arkansas
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 24 d2 Abril d2 1990
    ...but simply pursues the cause on behalf of the detained person, who remains the real party in interest. Morgan v. Potter, 157 U.S. 195, 198, 15 S.Ct. 590, 591, 39 L.Ed. 670 (1895); Nash ex rel. Hashimoto v. MacArthur, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 269-270, 184 F.2d 606, 607-608 (1950), cert. denied, ......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Haist
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 28 d6 Fevereiro d6 1903
    ...as a representative, and not as a party. 1 Estee's Pldg. § 479; 95 Cal. 456; 64 Cal. 593; 87 Cal. 530; 32 Cal. 111; 91 Am. Dec. 566; 157 U.S. 195; 36 214; 85 N. Car. 113; 75 N. Car. 263. The foreign guardian might even be regarded as a proper person to sue as next friend. 13 Mont. 70; 3 N.H......
  • 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