Shuman v. Hurd
| Decision Date | 05 May 1891 |
| Citation | 48 N.W. 672,79 Wis. 654 |
| Parties | SHUMAN v. HURD. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Rock county; JOHN W. SALE, Judge.Smith & Pierce, for appellant.
Winans & Hyzer, for respondent.
The material facts of this proceeding are as follows: On the 20th day of November, 1880, Lelia M. Hurd was duly intermarried with one Andrew Ingle. On the 3d day of October, 1884, an action for divorce, on the grounds of desertion and of cruel and inhuman treatment, was commenced in the circuit court of Rock county by said Andrew Ingle against said Lelia M. Ingle, and on the 15th day of November, 1884, a judgment of divorce was entered therein. From the time of said marriage until said divorce was granted the parties lived, boarded, and lodged in the same house, and had ample opportunity of access to and sexual intercourse with each other. On the 15th day of February, 1885, just three months after her divorce, said Lelia M. Ingle was married to the appellant, Alexander Shuman. On the 8th day of July, 1885, 7 months and 23 days, or 235 days, after divorce from the said Andrew Ingle, and 4 months and 21 days, or 143 days, after her marriage to said Alexander Shuman, she gave birth to Frances M. Shuman, the ward of the respondent, John C. Hurd, her guardian. On the 19th day of April, 1888, the said Lelia M. Shuman died in Rock county, intestate, leaving surviving her two daughters, the said Frances M. Shuman, and Sarah Myrtle Shuman, who was born subsequently to the said Frances, and her husband, Alexander Shuman, the appellant. The said Lelia M. Shuman, deceased, left personal estate valued at $40,000, and died seised of real estate valued, exclusive of her homestead, at about $12,000. One Silas Hurd was appointed administrator of said estate by the county court of Rock county, and on final settlement of the estate the real estate was assigned to the said Frances M. and Sarah Myrtle Shuman, in common, subject to the rights of Alexander Shuman, as tenant by curtesy, during his life, and the said Alexander Shuman, the appellant, entered into possession thereof. The respondent, John C. Hurd, was appointed the general guardian and guardian ad litem of the said Frances M. Shuman, who was an infant of five years of age. The said Frances M. Shuman and the said John C. Hurd were both ignorant of the entry of said order of assignment, and failed to take an appeal therefrom to the circuit court in the time fixed by the statute, and they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deering Harvester Co. v. Johnson
...47 Wis. 476, 3 N. W. 1;Marx v. Rowlands, 59 Wis. 110, 114, 17 N. W. 687;Jamison v. Snyder, 79 Wis. 286, 288, 48 N. W. 261;Shuman v. Hurd, 79 Wis. 654, 658, 48 N. W. 672; Oakley v. Davidson, supra; Capen v. Skinner, 139 Mass. 190, 29 N. E. 651;Sanborn v. Mitchell, 94 Mich. 519, 536, 54 N. W.......
-
Oakley v. Davidson
...construction by this court. Marx v. Rowlands, 59 Wis. 110, 17 N. W. 687;Jamison v. Snyder, 79 Wis. 286, 48 N. W. 261;Shuman v. Hurd, 79 Wis. 654, 48 N. W. 672. Thus it has been held that an order allowing such appeal will be presumed to have been based on good and sufficient grounds, in the......
-
Shuman v. Shuman (In re Shuman's Estate)
...from the order or judgment of the county court thus assigning and distributing the estate. For a history of this appeal, see Shuman v. Hurd, 79 Wis. 654, 48 N. W. Rep. 672. In August, 1890, Sarah M. Shuman, the younger of the two children of the intestate, died at the age of three years, an......
- Benedict v. Barling