Otte v. Becton
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 55 Mo. 99 |
| Parties | JOHN OTTE AND WIFE, Plaintiffs in Error, v. FERDINAND BECTON, et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Morgan Circuit Court.
J. A. Spurlock, for Plaintiffs in Error.
I. If a mother has maintained her infant child without the order of the court, she will be entitled to a liberal allowance or indemnity for what she has expended, without reference to the infant's fortune, though, if the court be applied to for prospective allowance, regard may be had to his fortune.
W. M. Woods, for Defendants in Error.
I. Plaintiffs in error are not entitled to recover in this action, because the minors were members of the family at the time the contract of marriage was entered into by plaintiffs, and remained there without any contract for remuneration for the maintenance and services sought to be charged against them. (See Gillett vs. Camp, 27 Mo., 541; Guion vs. Guion, 16 Mo., 48.)
This was an action in the nature of a bill in chancery to compel the guardian of three minor children, who are made defendants, to pay plaintiffs out of their estate, in his hands, a sum of money alleged to be due for past maintenance.
The leading facts are that John Spotts, the father of said minors, died on the 8th of June, 1863, whilst he was a soldier in the United States Army, and as such entitled to a pension. His wife received the pension after his death up to 1865, when she forfeited it by marrying the plaintiff, John Otte, and the children became entitled to the pension, which amounted to about eleven hundred dollars when this suit was commenced, and is held by their guardian for them.
The widow maintained the children, who were infants, the oldest being only six years of age, up to her inter-marriage with the plaintiff, and then she and her present husband since that time. They claim that it was worth twenty one hundred dollars to maintain the children up to the bringing of this suit, and they ask a judgment ordering that amount to be paid out of the funds in hand, and out of what may accumulate, each child being entitled to eight dollars per month till they arrive at sixteen years of age. It is alleged, that the mother and step-father are poor and not able to support the children.
The law seems to be well settled, that where the father or mother, or a step-...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Smith v. Martin
...the means of education, and that he charged these wards with these necessaries, etc., furnished. Guion v. Guion's Adm'r, 16 Mo. 48; Otto v. Breton, 55 Mo. 99. II. The sureties on the bond of a deceased curator can not, under the guardian's and curator's act (ch. 37, Revised Statutes, 1879),......
-
Slaughter v. Slaughter
...as elsewhere, that a father is bound to support his minor children, if able to do so, even though they have property of their own. Otte v. Becton, 55 Mo. 99, Guion v. Guion's Administrator, 16 Mo. 48; 46 C.J., Parent and Child, Sec. 38, page 1261; 67 C.J.S. Parent and Child Sec. 15c, page 6......
-
State ex rel. Weaver v. Weaver
...with the sale of the land. For all this, he should certainly be reimbursed. Maupin's Executor v. Dulany's Devisees, 5 Dana, 589; Otto v. Becton, 55 Mo. 99. Gantt & Casey for (1) The plaintiff's evidence made out a prima facie case. But conceding such not to be the case, defendants by their ......
- Sharp v. Rhiel