People ex rel. Kaiser v. Medart

• Decision Date: 11 November 1896
• Parties: PEOPLE, to Use of KAISER, v. MEDART et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

166 Ill. 348

46 N.E. 1095

PEOPLE, to Use of KAISER,

v.MEDART et al.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 11, 1896.

Error to appellate court, Fourth district.

Bill by the people of the state of Illinois, who sue for the use of Henrietta Kaiser, against Martin Medart and others. A decree dismissing the bill was affirmed (63 Ill. App. 111), and complainants bring error. Affirmed.

The opinion by Scofield, J., in this cause in the appellate court of the Fourth district is as follows:

‘The bill in this case was filed in the name of the people of the state of Illinois, for the use of Henrietta Kaiser, against Martin Medart and the sureties on his bond as executor of the last will and testament of Caroline Kaiser, deceased. Caroline Kaiser died testate on March 13, 1888, at St. Clair county, Illinois, leaving in that county considerable property, both real and personal, which passed to her son and six grandchildren by the operation of her will. Plaintiff in error admits that the estate was faithfully administered in every particular, except as to the sum of $2,000, which was paid by the executor on August 14, 1890, to E. O. Lindeman, of Dallas, Texas, who was the stepfather of Henrietta Kaiser. In 1885, when Henrietta was ten or eleven years old, she moved to Dallas, Texas, and lived there with her mother and stepfather. In 1888, Lindeman attempted to have himself appointed guardian of Henrietta, but the required bond was not given, and the proceeding was abandoned. In August, 1890, when Henrietta was over fourteen years of age, and empowered by the laws of Texas to choose her own guardian, an order was made by the county court of Dallas county appointing Lindeman guardian of her person and estate, and requiring him to give bond in the penal sum of $5,000. The bond was given and approved, the oath required by the statute was taken, and letters of guardianship were duly issued. Afterwards Martin Medart, as executor, paid to Lindeman, as guardian, the $2,000, as hereinbefore mentioned, which was part of the personal property bequeathed to Henrietta Kaiser by her grandmother, Caroline Kaiser. It is urged by the plaintiff in error that the appointment of Lindeman as guardian was void, and, to say the least, not operative as to property in Illinois, and that Medart, as executor, paid the said sum of money to Lindeman without even so much as an order of the county court of St. Clair county, Illinois, to give color of authority for the payment.

‘The aid of a court of chancery is invoked on the ground that an order has been made by the county court of St. Clair county approving the executor's report of the final settlement of the estate, and discharging him from his trust as executor. It is said that this order stands in the way of an action at law on the executor's bond, and that plaintiff in error's only remedy is in a court of equity. Many are the reasons presented as showing the invalidity of the appointment of Lindeman as guardian. The first point is that the county court of Dallas county had jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the person of Henrietta Kaiser, but not of her property, which was situated, as it is said, wholly within the state of Illinois. But the county court of Dallas did not undertake to appoint a guardian to manage and control the ward's property in this state. The ward lived in Texas. Moneys belonging to her could be paid to none but a guardian. The settlement of the estate of Caroline Kaiser could not be perfected till these moneys should be transferred to such a custodian. Under our statutes, it is only when a minor is a nonresident that an estate here is necessary to give the county court authority to appoint a guardian. Barnsback v. Dewey, 13 Ill. App. 581. The statutes of Texas, which are in evidence, are susceptible of the same construction.

‘It is also said that the order is void because it appoints Lindeman guardian of the person and estate, when the petition, bond, and letters relate to a guardianship of the estate only. Manifestly, such an order, thus fortified, would be good as to the estate, and the guardianship of the person is not involved in this case. Land Co. v. Kurtz, 45 Minn. 380, 47 N. W. 1134.

‘Another point presented is that Henrietta, though more than fourteen years of age, did not choose her own...