Walters v. Hermann

• Decision Date: 27 January 1890
• Citation: 12 S.W. 890,99 Mo. 529
• Parties: WALTERS et al. v. HERMANN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

12 S.W. 890

99 Mo. 529

WALTERS et al. v. HERMANN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January 27, 1890.

GUARDIAN AD LITEM — TAX — TITLES.

1. The appointment, as guardian ad litem of infants in a tax-suit, of an attorney employed by the collector does not invalidate a judgment against them where he was not employed by the collector in that case, and the removal of the general guardian from the suit was not occasioned by fraud.

2. In an action to set aside a tax-deed and the deeds to subsequent purchasers, the latter are not shown to be connected with inadequacy of the price at the tax-sale, or affected with notice thereof, by an allegation that the considerations expressed in their deeds were "wholly false."

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; SHEPARD BARCLAY, Judge.

The petition in this cause, as found in plaintiffs' abstract, is as follows: It sets forth, in substance: That appellants, in 1870, were minors, ranging from four to eight years in age, and in 1871 one Ott was by the probate court appointed their guardian; they having in 1870 inherited from their parents a lot in St. Louis, and nothing else; and that during their minority their only income was rental derived from the property until 1880, when it was sold by the sheriff for back taxes, and the wages they earned, which sufficed for their support, and no further. That in 1875, while they were still minors, general taxes on said lot, in the sum of $69.52, were assessed, and became payable. That their guardian, for a long time prior thereto, and a long time thereafter, and at the time of suit, had money enough to pay said taxes, but he failed to do so. In consequence, in 1878 the collector brought suit against them and their guardian on the tax-bill, which came on for trial in November, 1879, when the appellants were still minors. That the suit was dismissed by the collector as to their guardian, and the court appointed Frederick Spies guardian ad litem for appellants, which Spies was at the time an attorney of the collector, under contract with him for the prosecution of tax-suits; but Spies was not his attorney in the suit against appellants. That Spies accepted the appointment; filed a general denial. The case was submitted, and judgment rendered in favor of the state for $90.30. Execution issued, and appellants' lot sold, in April, 1880, to respondent Hermann for $210, who transferred the bid, and had deed made to respondent Short. Short sold to respondent Robertson in July, 1881, for $2,500; Robertson, to respondent Terminal Railroad Company, for $4,000, — which considerations, except that of the sheriff to Short, are alleged to be wholly false. Appellants allege that the failure of their guardian to pay the taxes, and the dismissal of the suit as to him, and the appointment of the collector's attorney,...