Stanton v. Johnson's Estate

• Citation: 163 S.W. 296,177 Mo. App. 54
• Parties: STANTON v. JOHNSON'S ESTATE.
• Decision Date: 05 January 1914
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

163 S.W. 296

177 Mo. App. 54

STANTON v. JOHNSON'S ESTATE.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 5, 1914.

Rehearing Denied February 2, 1914.

1. COURTS (§ 202) — JURISDICTION—PROBATE JUDGMENT.

In view of Rev. St. 1909, § 3956, giving the circuit courts appellate jurisdiction over judgments and orders of the probate courts in all cases not prohibited by law, and a supervisory jurisdiction over insane persons, the circuit court has jurisdiction of an appeal from an order denying a claim for the return of property purchased at a sale made under order of the probate court by the guardian of an insane person, though such appeal is not authorized by article 19, §§ 474-533, relating to the administration of an insane person's estate.

2. INSANE PERSONS (§ 71)—SALE OF PROPERTY —APPROVAL OF REPORT—EFFECT.

The fact that a guardian's report of a sale of an insane person's property under order of the probate court was approved by the court would not prevent a purchaser at the sale from objecting to retaining the property on the ground of misrepresentations with reference thereto, where when the sale was approved the probate court had under advisement purchaser's claim that the sale was fraudulent.

3. COURTS (§ 200¼)—JURISDICTION—PROBATE COURTS.

While a probate court does not have jurisdiction of purely equitable matters, it may apply equitable principles in a proper case of which it has jurisdiction.

4. INSANE PERSONS (§ 71)—SALE OF PROPERTY —SETTING ASIDE.

A probate court has jurisdiction to set aside a sale made by a guardian of an insane

person under its order, upon the application of a purchaser upon showing that fraud had been practiced upon the purchaser in making the sale by misrepresentations as to the property.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; William D. Rusk, Judge.

Action by D. H. Stanton against the estate of Allen Johnson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. W. Grier, of St. Joseph, and Broaddus & Crow, of Kansas City, for appellant. S. P. Reynolds, of St. Joseph, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Allen Johnson is an insane person whose estate is in charge of a guardian appointed by the probate court of Buchanan county. At the November term on the 26th November, 1910, that court ordered the guardian to sell at public outcry a lot of personal property, including a pair of mules. Plaintiff attended the sale and purchased the mules for $500 cash, on the guardian's warranty that they were sound. The guardian made report of the sale at the same term. Plaintiff shortly discovered that one of them was worthless, and at the same November term (January 23, 1911) presented his claim to the probate court, asking to return the mules, and that the purchase money be paid back to him. The claim was taken under advisement until the next term (February 13, 1911), when it was overruled and disallowed, and plaintiff appealed to the circuit court. The latter court likewise found against plaintiff, and he appealed to this court. As will be seen by report of the case in 163 Mo. App. 248, 146 S. W. 817, we reversed and remanded the cause. On retrial the judgment was for plaintiff and the guardian has brought the case here for review.

It is insisted that an appeal from the probate court is not allowed by law in cases affecting the administration of an estate of an insane person, under sections 474-533, art. 19, R. S. 1909. It is said that the statute is complete within itself, and that no appeal is provided for, and hence none should be allowed. But defendant has overlooked the fourth clause of section 3956, relating to the jurisdiction of circuit courts, reading as follows: "Appellate jurisdiction from the judgments and orders of county courts, probate courts and justices of the peace, in all cases not expressly prohibited by law, and shall possess a superintending control over them, and a general control over executors, administrators, guardians, curators, minors, idiots, lunatics and persons of unsound mind." The question was determined in Coleman v. Farrar, 112 Mo. 54, 72, 20 S. W. 441.

The next point presented against the judgment is that, the guardian's report of sale was approved by the probate court which defendant claims binds plaintiff. But at the time of this approval (January 30, 1911) plaintiff's...