State v. Guinotte

Citation282 S.W. 68
Decision Date01 March 1926
Docket NumberNo. 15422.,15422.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. WOOLMAN v. GUINOTTE, Probate Judge.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Original proceeding in prohibition by the State of Missouri, on the relation of Robert E. Woolman, against Jules E. Guinotte, Judge of the Probate Court of Jackson County. Preliminary writ made absolute.

Ben R. Estill, of Kansas City, and Duvall & Boyd and Miles Elliott, all of St. Joseph, for relator.

George F. Anderson, of Kansas City, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is an original proceeding in prohibition, seeking to prohibit respondent, the Honorable Jules E. Guinotte, judge of the probate court of Jackson county, Mo., from taking any further cognizance of the matter of the guardianship of the person and estate of the relator, respondent having attempted to adjudicate the relator insane and to appoint one Jeanette Raemer guardian over his person and estate. We issued the preliminary writ upon the filing of the petition herein.

The admitted facts are that on July 10, 1922, the said Jeanette Raemer, who is a daughter of relator, filed an information in the probate court of Jackson county, presided over by respondent judge, praying for an inquiry into the sanity of the relator. On the 11th day of July, 1922, a notice was issued to relator by respondent judge, directed to the sheriff of Jackson county, Mo. This notice purported to inform the relator that an information had been filed in said court stating that relator was a person of unsound mind and possessed of property, and was not capable of managing his affairs, and that an inquiry into said matters would be had in said court on the 17th day of July, 1922, at which time relator was requested to be present. The sheriff duly served this notice upon the relator by delivering a copy thereof to him. It is admitted that this notice was void, for the reason that it failed to apprise relator of his right to be present in person at. the inquisition and to be assisted by counsel. See State ex rel. v. Hodgdon (Mo. App.) 251. S. W. 131; State ex rel. v. Satterfield (Ma. App.) 274 S. W. 482.

On July 17, 1922, respondent proceeded to hold a hearing inquiring into the sanity of the relator, and on said day a judgment was entered adjudging relator to be a person of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs. Respondent thereupon appointed said Jeanette Raemer guardian of the person and estate of the relator. The judgment recites that:

"On this day comes on for hearing the inquiry into the mental condition of Robert E. Woolman, and comes Jeanette Raemer, the informant, in person and by attorney, and said Robert E. Woolman comes not, and the court finds that he has had due and legal notice of this and appoints Maurice J. O'Sullivan, an attorney, to represent him herein," etc. (Italics ours.)

It is admitted that Jeanette Raemer has qualified and is acting as guardian of the person and estate of the relator, and has assumed charge and control of relator's property and affairs. The petition for the writ alleges that relator was not present in court at the time of the hearing and the rendition the judgment declaring him insane, but respondent's amended return denies this allegation, and states that relator appeared in at said hearing, and that he was personally present and in the immediate presence of the court during all of the time of said hearing, and that he was then and there assisted by counsel. It alleges that, even though the notice was defective, by relator's in person the court obtained full complete control to conduct the hearing render the judgment. The return further alleges that the recital in the judgment that "said Robert E. Woolman comes not" incorrect and contrary to the fact, and that said recital was written into said judgment entry by mistake and inadvertence on part of the clerk of the probate court in entering said judgment, which mistake respondent did not discover and of which he had no knowledge until the commencement of this proceeding for a writ of prohibition. Respondent further alleges that there are no or memoranda kept by the probate court setting forth the fact of the appearance of relator at such proceeding on which base an order correcting said judgment by a nunc pro tunc entry.

The amended return further alleges that the 25th of June, 1925, said Jeanette Raemer, guardian of relator, commenced an action in equity in the circuit court of Jackson county against the respondent herein and relator, seeking to obtain a judgment and decree in said court, authorizing and directing the respondent to correct said judgment of said probate court so as to make the recitals therein in reference to the appearance said Robert E. Woolman in said probate court in said proceeding, conform to the fact and to set forth and show his appearance, that a copy of the petition and summons in said equity proceeding was duly served upon the respondent, and that said action in equity is returnable to the September, 1925, term of said circuit court, and "that an immediate trial could be had in said circuit court if answers were filed therein and application made for immediate trial, which this respondent offers to do in order to expedite an early determination of respondent's right to correct said judgment." A copy of the petition in said equity case is attached to the return.

The amended return further alleges that a portion of the real estate owned by relator at the time he was adjudged to be of unhearing sound mind has been sold by said guardian under and pursuant to the order of the probate court, which sale will appear to have been made without legal authority and to be void in the event that the probate court is held to have been without jurisdiction to declare relator insane, and "that great confusion and a multiplicity of suits will follow unless said judgment of the probate court is corrected" in the matters heretofore mentioned. Respondent, in his amended return, asks that we authorize or direct him to make the correction of his records or that this proceeding be stayed until the equity case can be heard.

The petition in equity filed in the circuit court, seeking to correct the judgment of the probate court, alleges facts similar to those set forth in respondent's return in reference to the presence of relator in the probate court at the time he was adjudged insane, and his participation in the hearing by counsel appointed by the court, relator not having an attorney. It alleges that the recital in the judgment that "said Robert E. Woolman comes not" does not correspond to the fact, and that said recitation was mistakenly put in the judgment by the clerk of the probate court in drawing the entry; that the term of the probate court at which the judgment was entered had expired, and there were no records or papers in existence upon which to base a nunc pro tunc entry reciting the true fact as to the appearance of the relator; that the mistake of the clerk was not discovered until the filing of the application for a writ of prohibition in this court; that certain real estate of the relator had been sold, and that plaintiff therein had received the proceeds thereof and the rentals from other property owned by relator, and had applied the same, pursuant to the order of the probate court, to the care of relator and the support of his minor daughters and for the improvement of his real estate; that, unless correction of the judgment be made, the sale of the real estate will appear to have been void, and the acts of the guardian will appear to have been without legal right or authority, etc. It alleges that said mistake or inadvertence on the part of the clerk of the probate court in entering the judgment was made without any neglect or knowledge thereof on her part, and that there is no adequate remedy at law, and prays that the judge of the probate court be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Derossett v. Marsh
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 1931
    ... ... Sec. 2825, R. S. 1919. The statement ... filed in this case with Harry T. West, justice of the peace, ... is not sufficient, does not state a cause of action and does ... not authorize the rendition of a judgment thereon, and ... therefore the judgment rendered by the justice is void ... Boughton, 50 Mo. 17; ... Case v. Cunningham, 61 Mo. 434; Williams v ... Carroll County, 167 Mo. 9, 14; State ex rel. Wollman ... v. Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68, 70; Michie v ... Grainger, 149 Mo.App. 301, 305. (4) Where a court of ... equity takes jurisdiction of a case, it will make complete ... ...
  • Derossett v. Marsh
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 1931
    ...l.c. 469; Wilson v. Boughton, 50 Mo. 17; Case v. Cunningham, 61 Mo. 434; Williams v. Carroll County, 167 Mo. 9, l.c. 14; State ex rel. Wollman v. Guinotte, 282 S.W. 68, l.c. 70; Michie v. Grainger, 149 Mo. App. 301, l.c. 305. (4) Where a court of equity takes jurisdiction of a case, it will......
  • Potter, et al. v. McLin, et al.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 8, 1948
    ...judgment for mere irregularities or for a judicial mistake, or render judgment which was not actually rendered. State ex rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 221 Mo. App. 466, 282 S.W. 68. (3) Plaintiffs' motion does not state any facts which would authorize the court to amend its judgment nunc pro tu......
  • State ex rel. Boll v. Weinstein, s. 45253
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1956
    ... ... In the present case we have solely a question of law, and there is no judgment. And see: Davision v. Hough, 165 Mo. 561, 65 S.W. 731; State ex rel. Woolman v. Guinotte, 221 Mo.App. 466, 282 S.W. 68. The proceeding in prohibition is a constituent part of our common law, 73 C.J.S., Prohibition, Sec. 2a, p. 10, and it is recognized by our constitution, Sec. 4, Art. 5, and our statutes, Ch. 530, as [365 Mo. 1186] a primary means by which this court may exercise its ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT