Rhodes v. Frazier's Estate
| Decision Date | 25 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 2238.,2238. |
| Citation | 204 S.W. 547 |
| Parties | RHODES v. FRAZIER'S ESTATE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
Suit by J. T. Rhodes on a claim against the Estate of Martin Frazier, a minor. From the judgment rendered, Rhodes appeals. Affirmed.
Moore, Barrett & Moore, of Ozark, for appellant. G. Purd Hays, of Ozark, for respondent.
The plaintiff presented to the probate court of Christian county for allowance against the estate of Martin Frazier, minor, a promissory note for $100 signed by the said minor and L. P. Frazier. Said L. P. Frazier was the duly appointed guardian of said minor, but signed the note personally and not officially. The note was presented for allowance in the same manner and with the same formalities as is required in the administration of the estates of deceased persons. The probate court allowed the claim in the manner indicated, and an appeal was taken to the circuit court. When the case reached the circuit court the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the cause, alleging want of jurisdiction in the probate court to hear and try such claim or demand; that such note is not a proper claim against the estate of such minor; that if a minor can make notes and bind his estate he has no need of a guardian; that the note sued on was given for a horse, "and is not a necessary"; that the minor is now of full age. Other allegations were made, but not proved. The trial court heard evidence as to all these matters and sustained the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
While it may be that some of the matters inquired into on this motion to dismiss would more properly be heard on the trial of the claim itself, no objection was made as to the manner of the trial or the relevancy or competency of the evidence. Both parties apparently offered all the evidence they had, and the court heard the whole controversy on this motion. The evidence showed that Martin Frazier, a minor, had a small estate less than a thousand dollars. When he was about 16 years old this plaintiff sold him a horse for $100, and took the note in question. Plaintiff testified that the boy used the horse in going to school and hauling wood. He did not know what became of it. It was also shown that, when the guardian made his next annual settlement after the purchase of the horse, he took credit for the same against his ward's estate, without in fact having made such expenditure. When the boy became of age he gave his guardian a final receipt showing full settlement, but whether or not this error was corrected between them does not appear. It appears that on the hearing in the probate court both the Fraziers disputed their signatures to the note, and there was also a controversy there as to the genuineness of the receipt purporting to have been given by plaintiff, but no such defense was made in the circuit court.
We have much doubt as to the jurisdiction of the probate court to allow and enforce payment of this claim. The note is purely a personal obligation of the two Fraziers, and we see no reason Way the note should not have been sued on in the regular way,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frost v. Timm
...Jones v. Peterson, 72 S.W.2d 76, 85; Judson v. Walker, 155 Mo. 166, 55 S.W. 1083; Greever v. Barker, 316 Mo. 308, 289 S.W. 586; Rhodes v. Frazier, 204 S.W. 547; Seilert McAnally, 233 Mo. 505, 515; Webb v. Hayden, 166 Mo. 50. (3) This is an action of trover for conversion of personal propert......
-
Jones v. Peterson
...289 S.W. 586.] And, "On all contracts made by him for the benefit of his ward, he is personally and solely liable." [Rhodes v. Frazier's Estate (Mo. App.), 204 S.W. 547.] that connection 12 Ruling Case Law, section 27, page 1128, says: "The special care with which the law protects the inter......
-
Jones v. Peterson
...289 S.W. 586.] And, "On all contracts made by him for the benefit of his ward, he is personally and solely liable." [Rhodes v. Frazier's Estate (Mo. App.), 204 S.W. 547.] In that connection 12 Ruling Case Law, section 27, page 1128, says: "The special care with which the law protects the in......
-
Merrick v. Stephens
...seq.; Williston on Contracts, 3rd ed., vol. 2, sec. 241, p. 52; Freiburghaus v. Herman Body Co., supra, 102 S.W.2d 743; Rhodes v. Frazier's Estate, Mo.App., 204 S.W. 547; Paul v. Smith, 41 Mo.App. 275. But if we have a combination of emancipation with necessity there is often an enlarged an......