Twine v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 20 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 31643 |
| Parties | TWINE, Adm'r. v. EDWARDS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. INSANE PERSONS-County court adjudging person incompetent and appointing guardian while like proceedings were pending in another county acted without jurisdiction and its orders were void and subject to collateral attack.
Where a person was adjudged mentally incompetent and a guardian appointed for his estate by a county court upon a petition which showed upon its face that such person had theretofore been adjudged an incompetent and a guardian appointed for his estate by a county court of another county, which guardianship preceedings were still pending, such county court in making such adjudication and appointment acted without jurisdiction. Its orders were therefore void and subject to collateral attack.
2. SAME-Guardian of estate of incompetent under void appointment treated in equity as de facto guardian and he and his bondsman required in suit by ward's administrator to account for property.
Where a county court, without first having acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, adjudges a person incompetent and appoints a guardian for his estate and letters of guardianship are issued to such person and a guardian's bond is executed and filed by him with the county court and he assumes possession and management of his ward's estate under such appointment, he will be treated in equity as a de facto guardian and upon the death of the ward his administrator may bring an action in equity against him as such de facto guardian and the surety on his bond for an accounting and for judgment against him and his surety for the amount found due on such accounting.
3. VENUE--Action against foreign insurance company maintainable in county of plaintiff's residence and summons issuable to other counties for joint defendants.
An action against a foreign insurance company may be maintained in the county of plaintiff's residence under the provisions of 12 O. S. 1941 § 137, and when sued jointly with other defendants summons may be issued to any other counties for the joint defendants, under the provisions of 12 O. S. 1941 § 153.
Appeal from District Court, Muskogee County; O. H. P. Brewer, Judge.
Action by Harry Twine, administrator of the estate of Boley Vaughn, deceased, against H. H. Edwards, D. G. Hart, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company for an accounting and other relief. From a judgment sustaining defendants' challenge to the jurisdiction, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Charles A. Chandler. of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
Forrester Brewster, of Muskogee, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is an action brought in the district court of Muskogee county by Harry Twine, administrator of the estate of Boley Vaughn, deceased, against H. H. Edwards and D. G. Hart, who, it is alleged, were appointed guardians of the estate of the deceased by the county court of Seminole county, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, surety on their bond, for an accounting by defendants Edwards and Hart while acting as guardian and 4 or a judgment against them and defendant surety company for such sum as may be found due on the accounting.
¶2 Plaintiff in his petition alleged that the county court of Seminole county was without jurisdiction to appoint a guardian over the person and estate of the deceased Boley Vaughn for the reason that at the time the appointment was made there was pending an undisposed of guardianship proceeding in the county court of Tulsa county, Okla.; that Boley Vaughn was adjudged incompetent by said court on the 5th day of May, 1924, and that such proceeding was still pending in said court at the time the appointment was made by the county court of Seminole county; that said county court of Seminole county first appointed Jim Vaughn guardian; that he was thereafter removed for failure to file proper bond, and that defendant Edwards was appointed his successor, and that upon his resignation D. G. Hart was appointed as his successor; that the said guardians took charge of the estate of deceased and misappropriated the same; that at the time of the resignation of the defendant Edwards he filed his account, which was approved by the county court of Seminole county, and the property was turned over to his successor, D. G. Hart. D. G. Hart filed his final account, which was approved by the county court of Seminole county, and both the guardian and the surety on his bond was discharged and exonerated. Plaintiff further alleges that all of these proceedings of the county court were void for want of jurisdiction. Plaintiff attached to his petition as exhibits the proceedings of the county court of Seminole county appointing Edwards and Hart guardians, which show on their face that there was pending in the county court of Tulsa county guardianship proceedings over the estate of the deceased. Plaintiff then prayed for judgment for an accounting, for the setting aside of these orders and for judgment against the defendants Edwards and Hart personally and the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety on the bond for any amount that might be found due on the accounting. There is also an allegation that defendant surety company is a foriegn insurance company.
¶3 H. H. Edwards and D. G. Hart, in response to the petition and service of summons upon them, filed a special appearance challenging the jurisdiction over their person and in which they alleged that the court had no jurisdiction over their person because they resided in counties other than Muskogee that H. H. Edwards was a resident of Tulsa county and was served in that county, and that D. G. Hart was a resident of Seminole county and was served there, and for that reason the court was without jurisdiction over their person and the summons served upon them was void; that the allegations set forth in the petition against the defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company failed to state a cause of action and that service upon it in Muskogee county did not authorize a summons to be issued and served upon them in Tulsa and Seminole counties. There was also filed on behalf of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company a special appearance challenging the jurisdiction of the court as to it over the subject matter of the action in which it is alleged that the court was without jurisdiction to determine or adjudicate any liability against it for the reason no judgment had been rendered against the guardians surcharging their accounts showing a balance due and owing by them to the ward.
¶4 The trial court sustained defendants' challenge to the jurisdiction of the court and rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action. Plaintiff has appealed and assigns this ruling as error.
¶5 Defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Warren v. Stanfield (In re Stanfield)
-
Hunter v. MISSOURI-PACIFIC-TEXAS RAILROAD COMPANY
... ... See Wray v. Garrett, 185 Okl. 138, 90 P.2d 1050; Twine v. Edwards, 196 Okl. 382, 165 P.2d 143; and La Fayette et al. v. Bass, 122 Okl. 182, 252 P. 1101 ... In view of the foregoing ... ...
-
Logan v. Logan
... ... See In re Mize's Guardianship, 1943, 193 Okl. 164, 142 P.2d 116, 118, and Twine v. Edwards, 1945, 196 Okl. 382, 165 P.2d 143, 145, re de facto guardian resulting in application of estoppel in pais doctrine ... We ... ...
- Twine v. Edwards