Amаnda Bagsby and B. L. Zachary were married May 30, 1904, and on September 4 of the same year a son was born, who was named Blakely. Shortly after the birth of this son Mrs. Zachary obtained a divorce from her husband on the ground of desertion. In 1908 Zаchary married a second time, and installed this wife in a home which he owned in Alma, Arkansas, where he resided with her until his death, which occurred in 19'22. Zachary was an employee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad at the time of his dеath, and was killed while pursuing his employment, and the administrator of his estate recovered judgment against the railroad company for the death of his intestate. The judgment was for $2,750, of which $2,000' was for the benefit of the widow and next оf kin and $750 for the benefit of the estate.
On April 28,1922, suit was brought by the mother of Blakely Zachary as his guardian and next friend against his father’s second wife to recover his interest in his father’s estate. On June 18, 1923, a consent decree was rendered in this case, which recites the appearance of the parties in person and by attorneys, who “announced that settlement of the same had been reached by mutual agreement of the parties thеreto.”
The decree further recited: “Whereupon the court finds that the parties have agreed judgment shаll be entered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $650 in full satisfaction of his interest and claim in the property belonging to the estate of said Bert or B. L. Zachary, deceased, consisting of” the homestead, “and also in full satisfaction of the plaintiff’s interest and claim in and to all of thn personal property belonging to said estatе, consisting of” the proceeds of the judgment against the railroad company and certain other pеrsonal property. It was therefore adjudged that plaintiff have judgment for $650 in full satisfaction of all his rights of inheritance in the estate of his father, and that “all right, title, interest and claim of said Blakely Zachary in and to said lot is hereby vested in Fannie Zachary in fee simple forever.”
After the rendition of the above judgment Mrs. Zachary sold and сonveyed the homestead to appellant, Kuykendall.
On April 9, 1927, Blakely Zachary brought this suit in ejectment to reсover the homestead from Kuykendall, and the cause was transferred to equity, and upon the trial there the сhancellor decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the property, subject only to thе dower rights of Ms stepmother, all questions of accounting being reserved, and this appeal is from that decrеe.
It is the opinion of the majority that the instant case is not essentially different from that of Rankin v. Schofield,
The doctrine of the Rankin case was reaffirmed in the case of Frazier v. Frazier,
‘1 Morеover, we are of the opinion that the court erred in not setting aside the order of confirmation for the reasons which affected the substantial rights of the minors. Neither the guardian nor the guardian’s attorney can makе any admissions to the prejudice of the ward. McCloy & Trotter v. Arnett,
This opinion is not to be intеrpreted as denying the right of the representatives of a minor litigant to effect a compromise of his litigation, for a compromise might in many cases be entirely proper and highly advantageous to the minor; but it does mean that a compromise cannot be effective unless it is first approved by the court as being fair tо the minor, and the approval would, of course, imply such investigation on the part of the court as made the fact appear that the minor’s interest had not been sacrificed. But in a case, as in the Rankin cаse and in this, where it affirmatively appears that no investigation and determination was made, and the court’s only action was to embody the settlement in the decree, making the .settlement the decree of the cоurt, it is void.
The decree here attacked, being void on its face, was subject to the collateral attack made against it. The decree setting’ it aside is therefore affirmed.