Woods v. Boots
| Decision Date | 31 May 1875 |
| Citation | 60 Mo. 546 |
| Parties | JOHN W. WOODS, Guardian, etc., Appellant, v. BENJ. F. BOOTS, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court.
Heren & Altgeld, for Appellant.
As the money of these wards was not derived under the provisions of this statute, from a sale of their land, but from another source, the Probate Court had no power to order their guardian to purchase real estate without this fund.
W. S. Greenlee, for Respondents.
I. If the court may order the proceeds of real estate sold by the guardian to be re-invested in real estate, it can order the proceeds of land sold by the administrator, or funds derived from such sale through the hands of the administrator, or even the proceeds of personal estate to be so invested. And it would also have that power by virtue of its authority to make appropriations of the estate for the proper education and support of the wards.
II. The party seeking to set aside the settlement and allowance in favor of his guardian, must charge and prove that such allowances and settlements were procured by fraudulent and false means and pretences, unjustly and to the injury of the parties and estate interested. (20 Mo., 87; 27 Mo., 399. 34 Mo., 253; 47 Mo., 390; 54 Mo., 200.)
This was an equitable proceeding to vacate and set aside a deed and correct a settlement made by the defendant, Boots, whilst acting as the guardian and curator of the minor plaintiffs.
The facts are, that Boots was the guardian and curator of the minor heirs of one Patterson, deceased, and whilst acting as such he received the sum of twenty-six hundred dollars, belonging to his wards. By an order of the Probate Court of Andrew county, he was authorized to invest the money in real estate, for the benefit of his wards, and in pursuance of that authority he purchased of one Burns, who is defendant in this case, and who was a surety on his bond, an eighty acre tract of land, for the price and sum of twenty-eight hundred dollars. He paid all the purchase money except eight hundred dollars, and the deed made to the infants expressly reserved a lien in favor of Burns, the vendor, for the unpaid purchase money, which was to bear ten per cent. interest till paid. The wards had no other estate whatever, except the twenty-six hundred dollars which came into the guardian's hands. The Probate Court approved this proceeding, and the guardian afterwards made his final settlement, and was discharged.
Subsequently the plaintiff was appointed guardian and curator, and instituted this proceeding. The bill charges fraud, and a combination between Boots and Burns to cheat the minor children out of their patrimony; and alleges that the consideration agreed to be paid for the land was greatly in excess of its true value.
The court found for the defendants.
It is now insisted that the act of the defendant Boots, in making the purchase, was void, and that the Probate Court had no jurisdiction of the matter, and could confer upon him no authority.
The power of ordering a guardian or curator to sell lands of the wards and invest the funds, existed originally in the Circuit Court as a court of chancery. By the act of 1866, (Sess. Acts 1866, p. 84) the Probate Court in certain counties was invested with the same power to a certain extent, and this act was afterwards applied to Andrew county. By section 7 of the act, it is provided that “said Probate Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit Court in the following cases: when the income of a ward shall be insufficient to maintain him or her and their families, or when it appears that it would be for the benefit of a ward that his or her real estate, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heady v. Crouse
...binding upon all parties alike; assuming, of course, that the court has acquired jurisdiction of the proper parties. In Woods v. Boots, however, reported in 60 Mo. 546, Judge Wagner lays down as a premise to a further argument that "the power of ordering a guardian or curator to sell lands ......
-
Boatmen's Nat. Bank of St. Louis v. Bolles
...court to approve the disbursement of the $ 30,000,000 in the final settlement to revocation. Sontag v. Stix, 191 S.W.2d 988; Woods v. Boots, 60 Mo. 546. (7) The approval the settlement to revocation which referred on its face to the $ 30,000 payment having been made to Grace Thomasson pursu......
-
Sontag v. Stix
...of Trusts, Secs. 201, 205, compared with Sec. 326 and Comment (a) thereto; In re Keisker's Estate, 350 Mo. 727, 168 S.W.2d 96; Woods v. Boots, 60 Mo. 546; R.S. 1929, Sec. (this also appears thus numbered in R.S. 1939). (7) The Humphries case, cited and relied on by plaintiff, is in error. I......
-
The State ex inf. McAllister v. Norborne Land Drainage District Company of Carroll County
......v. Fleming, 148 Mo. 9, 12; State ex inf. v. Fleming,. 158 Mo. 567; State ex inf. Major v. Kansas City, 233. Mo. 171; State ex inf. v. Woods, 233 Mo. 382. (3) It has been. ruled by this court that the extension, by the judgment or. decree of a circuit court, of the boundary lines of a. ...503; Michael v. St. Louis, 112. Mo. 610; Cunningham v. Pac. Railroad, 61 Mo. 33;. Jefferson Co. v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234; Woods v. Boots, 60 Mo. 546. All jurisdictional facts must. affirmatively appear upon the face of the proceedings and no. presumptions are indulged as to matters ......