Owens v. Gunther
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | RIDDICK, J. |
| Citation | 86 S.W. 851,75 Ark. 37 |
| Parties | OWENS v. GUNTHER |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1905 |
75 Ark. 37
OWENS
v.
GUNTHER
Supreme Court of Arkansas
April 8, 1905
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court JESSE C. HART, Chancellor.
Judgment modified.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
Mary Ellen Owens, Catherine M. Owens and Margaret Owens were the owners of three lots in the city of Little Rock, worth about $ 8,000. Their father, E. J. Owens, also claimed to own a life estate in these lots as tenant by curtesy. He was guardian of his children named above, and had secured an order of the probate court authorizing him to mortgage the lots for the sum of $ 3,000 for the purpose of educating his wards. In pursuance of this order, he mortgaged his interest and the interest of his wards in these lots to E. L. Gunther for $ 3,000. He failed to repay the money, and Gunther brought a suit in equity to foreclose his mortgage. Owens filed an answer to the complaint, and Mary Ellen Owens, who had become of age, filed her answer by her attorneys, Rose, Hemingway & Rose.
It was suggested to the chancellor that the interests of E. J. Owens, the statutory guardian, had become antagonistic to the interests of his wards, as he claimed a life estate in this property, and the court thereupon refused to permit him to appear for his wards, and appointed a guardian ad litem to make defense for the two minors. Rose, Hemingway & Rose then appeared as attorneys for the guardian ad litem, and filed an answer for the two minors, and represented them in the action, by and with the permission of the chancery court.
The result of the litigation was that the court held that the mortgage was void as to the minors, and that E. J. Owens had no interest in the land, as tenant by curtesy or otherwise, and the complaint of the plaintiff was dismissed. Some two or three years afterwards Rose, Hemingway & Rose, by their attorney, asked and obtained leave to have the cause redocketed, and filed a petition setting out the facts in relation to their conduct of the defense for such infants, and asked the court to allow them a reasonable compensation for their services, and require respondents Catherine M. Owens and Margaret Owens to pay the same, and that the sum allowed be declared a lien on the estate of respondents.
The respondents appeared by their guardian, and resisted the application for an allowance of an attorney's fee out of their estate. The court made the allowance against each of the respondents for a fee of $ 166.66, and they have appealed by their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Statler v. Dodson, 22544
...187 Ky. 77, 218 S.W. 994 (1920) (legal services to protect infant's property rights may be treated as necessaries); Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851 (1905) (considered as necessaries the legal services protecting an infant's property rights in a suit where interests of the infant a......
-
Emery v. Goff, Case Number: 30509
...guardian who recovered land of a minor might be paid, but the attorney had no interest or lien on the property recovered. Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130. ¶18 Chief Justice Williams made use of these words:"The disaffirmance of a contract made by an infant nullifi......
-
Grissom v. Beidleman, Case Number: 3283
...under fees brought into court by proper decree, under the power of equity in its control of minors' estates. In Owens et al. v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130, it was held that where, in a suit in chancery involving the real property of infants, the chancellor, on account......
-
Mankin v. Dickinson, (No. 2632.)
...substantial merit, and it must be overruled. That a guardian ad litem may have counsel seems well settled. 22 Cyc. 665; Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S. W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130, and note. [21 In support of the decree it is interposed by counsel for Mankin that a cross-bill can not be fil......
-
Statler v. Dodson, 22544
...187 Ky. 77, 218 S.W. 994 (1920) (legal services to protect infant's property rights may be treated as necessaries); Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851 (1905) (considered as necessaries the legal services protecting an infant's property rights in a suit where interests of the infant a......
-
Emery v. Goff, Case Number: 30509
...guardian who recovered land of a minor might be paid, but the attorney had no interest or lien on the property recovered. Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130. ¶18 Chief Justice Williams made use of these words:"The disaffirmance of a contract made by an infant nullifi......
-
Grissom v. Beidleman, Case Number: 3283
...under fees brought into court by proper decree, under the power of equity in its control of minors' estates. In Owens et al. v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S.W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130, it was held that where, in a suit in chancery involving the real property of infants, the chancellor, on account......
-
Mankin v. Dickinson, (No. 2632.)
...substantial merit, and it must be overruled. That a guardian ad litem may have counsel seems well settled. 22 Cyc. 665; Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S. W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130, and note. [21 In support of the decree it is interposed by counsel for Mankin that a cross-bill can not be fil......