*1 OF MISSOURI, COURT Sidwell v. Kaster. G. A. SIDWELL and AUGUST SANDERS NATHAN Appellants;
L. KASTER KASTER, and LEE No. 21,851.
G. A. Appellants, SIDWELL AUGUST and SANDERS,
v. NATHAN L. and KASTER LEE KASTER No. 21,850. July One,
Division 1921. Party. DEED OF TRUST: Suit to 1. Foreclosure: Trustee as aTo brought guardian against and suit curator to foreclose a deed by person, of trust executed an insane the trustee is not a neces- sary party, party a failure to make him in no a manner affects validity sale. Party: - — : -: Wife as Waiver. If divorced 2. wife mortgagor pf oceeding party brought necessary the insane against a to a trust, curator a deed foreclose point should answer or demurrer have defendant raised having necessary party, do failed to so waived a she was the defect. Conspiracy Inadequacy of to Bid: FORECLOSURESALE: Not Price.
3. brought by purchaser quiet title, sheriffs at a In suit to a pur- acre, per and another who had $125 sale of land worth $100to part purchase price, paid after the sale chased ' void, proceeding mortgagor the foreclosure who claims conspiracy purchaser between not be held that there was will subsequently person sold whom he sale and at sheriff’s being buyer evidence there no not bid that the would agree- had therd been intended to bid have bid or that he would get being buy, that he could evidence not there ment outsanding of the dower debtor’s clear title because impleaded fore- wife, him not been fault had who held will it be proceeding. circumstances under such Nor closure paid .per sale at the sheriff’s acre of $68.75 being inadequate, included. dower the wife’s peti- of a The mere failure ACTION: Jurisdiction. OF CAUSE juris- deprive the court action does cause of tion to state a diction. APRIL TERM,
Sidwell v. Kaster. Against 5. JURISDICTION: Suit Insane Person. The per- does not have exclusive of suits insane *2 sons; has'jurisdiction the circuit court also of suits on founded against person, they claims an insane whether before arose during guardianship. [Disapproving Kaster, Johnson v. Mo. App. 501.] Judgment Against Against -:6. Suit Guardian: Restored Ward: judgment Collateral Attack. the Where has obtained in been probate against guardian person, court of an insane and the before payment adjudged right mind, person such is restored to his bring against may creditor in circuit suit court restored such person judgment against for amount of his claim and obtain him; by express for of statute an insane words where person adjudged mind, the is restored his administration ends, upon probate immediately and the estate in the his court terminated, jurisdiction that court over him is estate any subject other he on the same as is to suit valid claim judgment petition person. the cir- And the fact against by probate court court an allowance cuit recited insane, yet and asked he the same claim while on judgment of the allowance interest from for the amount date, alleging constituted indebtedness allowance its said jurisdiction defendant, deprive the circuit did not court of the judgment invalid, suit, for whether the facts or render the of the question the cir- a cause of action was constituted a stated question proceeding decide, collateral cuit and in a court to erroneous, ruling for the failure most and the is immaterial jurisdiction. affect of action a to state a cause quiet judgment by purchaser title said a in a suit And therein, judgment brought against said cannot defendant theory allowance that the invalid on the held to be estate judgment defendant’s in rem was a court personam was one in court the circuit App. Mo.. [Disapproving personally. Johnson him 501.] Supersedeas: Exe- No JUDGMENT: FROM ERRONEOUS APPEAL the circuit of Purchaser. Where Title cution: void, but and was was for for debt action in an court supersedeas staying erroneous, error without only on writ reversed, issued execution writ but before execution was land, purchaser at such defendant’s and levied issued title, is proceeding, stranger takes the aif impaired reversal. way COURT OF Raster.
Sidwell v. Appeal Schuyler Pet- N. M. Circuit Court. —Ho».
tingill, Judge. part); part). {in (m Affirmed Reversed Higbee Campbell & c& Mills, Rolston and Rolston appellant é Ellison for in No. 21850.
(1) general jurisdic- A circuit court original jurisdiction and has tion all civil exclusive provided cases not otherwise for. Art. sec. 32, Mo. (2) Constitution. A rendered court hav- ap- ing peal subject-matter, from which no binding been
has
conclusive
taken,
and can-
*3
impeached
pleading
proof.
not be
defect
In
upon
sufficiency
a suit
inquired
on which isit
rendered
into.
cannot be
Holt Co.
v.
114
514.
cannot
Cannon, Mo.
A
be collater-
jurisdiction
ally
peti-
attacked for want of
because the
tion does not
state
if
since,
cause
action,
states a
belonging
general
case
to the
class over which the au-
thority
jurisdiction
of the court extends,
is conferred.
Winningham v.
149 Mo.
Trueblood,
Cole
572;
v. Parker,
(3)
party
S.
J.
respondents
21850.
No.
hosier & Morris
absolutely
Fogle judgment
because
void
'The
sub-
Schuyler
over
Circuit Court had
ject-matter
shows,
record so
whole
action and the
may
collaterally.
212
Faster,
v.
and it
be attacked
App.
(Mo. App.)
199 Mo.
Faster,
v.
S.
565;
W.
Johnson
Moody
Peyton,
587;
Brown v.
79 Mo.
v.
Chadwick,
501;
,St.
v.
354; Chandler
34 Pa.
Black,
135 Mo.
Black
491;
v.
Constitution;
sec. Mo.
34,
52 Mo.
Art.
Sec.
Dodson,
130;
6,
Cyc.
1074, and
1060, 1073,
R. S.
23
1909;
1059,
Cyc.
Their
on “Courts and
Ju-
Works
1087;
1307-8;
p.
Black,-231
691;
v.
Mo.
169;
sec.
Smith
risdiction,”
Bryson,
Draper
Sack,
616;
v.
81 Mo.
Mo.
Heard
83;
v.
p.
15 R.
L.
428;
210 Mo.
C.
v. Edmonston,
Turner
p.
Low-
128;
sec.
Railroad
see.
10 R.
L.
v.
C.
374;
178
COURT OF
Sidwell v.
Ayers v.
690;
v.
210 Mo.
Mills,
be set aside. Walker
Oyc.
on Judicial Sales
Blair,
1278; Roer
558;
26 W. Va.
17
(2
equity
(3)
Ed.), p.
to
A
set
bill
sec. 1087.
upon
grounds
when the
an execution
aside
sale
apparent
sought
the sale
set aside are
is
be
inspection
proceedings
will
case,
in this
be
an
Dewey,
Cyc.
Abbey
416;
Pa. St.
v.
25
1282;
sustained. 17
Philips
Mc-
421;
Pa. St.
Underwood v.
v.
161
Benson,
(4)
(Va.)
toler-
Ough,
will not
The law
23 Grat.
427.
ju-
competition
prevent
likely
at a
ate
influence
every
debtor
dicial
and it accords to
get
opportunity
full
for his
to fair sale and
S.)
(U.
property.
559; Under-
Wall.
Izard,
Cocks v.
7
(5)
(Va.)
McVeigh,
The court
428.
Gratt.
wood v.
appeal
the testi-
equity
consider all
on
will
in
mony
suit
conscience
direct
findings
judg-
approve disregarding
will
court below.
ment of
trial
<$>
Higbee
Campbell
Mills and Bolston dt
<&Ellison,
respondents in No. 21851.
Bolston
(1)
parties.
R.
There is no defect
Sec.
S.
(2) The defense
SMALL, C. County. ler
Suit, quiet 'sixty title to one-hundred and acres of forty adjoining of land and also land, thereto, .acres .Township Range county. said Section February, The avers: That plaintiff in fee of said lands, the owner Sanders became day into a con- entered afterwards and on the same co-plaintiff. convey lands said to sell and tract part purchase price, paid co-plaintiff has That unpaid, part purchase price and the deed and a of said agreement yet there is an That has not been executed. pur- upon payment plaintiffs of said said that, between chase-money, That defendants will executed. deed they right and that lands, or interest in said claim some they possession have thereof, but are entitled to the pray right interest. Plaintiffs no such nor together adjudged, respective titles be defined and possession thereof. up general sets denial, answer, besides sixty plaintiffs one-hundred and acres claimed the proceedings in foreclosure an execution sale L. Kaster,- Nathan defendants defendant inadequacy say set because aside, should be brought paid about reason Sanders, plaintiffs conspiracy others to of a between by plaintiff bidding prevent at such Sanders failing purposely in the deed of trust, to make the trustee parties to such foreclosure. and the wife of plaintiffs to the acres under claim title That the OF COUET *6 Sidwell v. Kaster. Fogle against an in the case of defend- execution sale ant, Nathan L. which execution sale absolute- was ly rendering because the court had void, jurisdiction, inadequacy it was also no and that void for conspiracy plaintiffs price, between the- and others suppress bidding. affecting Other minor matters alleged, which will are also be noticed sale opinion. sales of both tracts were made on the The February day, same put alleged reply matters the answer in
issue.
Plaintiff testified substance as follows: Sanders forty-acre sixty-acre and one That both the hundred and day, February on the same sold the sheriff tracts were assemblage of while the same bidders was anyone present. not recollect that made Witness did that there would be a defect in statement at selling to about Sidwell title. He talked bought previous agreement day no he it. Had same bought prices. If he it, him. Talked over with there was at sale. Does not no why set. Sidwell know Does not did not bid. remember whether
Sidwell give title to it. said would he he your you at side while “Q.‘ bid, Sidwell stood you you off to went it was knocked over as soon as I sold Tes,sir, office in Lancaster? —A. it. I here didn’t 1 bid in. see when Don’t him there remember away together. we walked whether You know the reason Sidwell didn’t bid? “Q. A. They just I sold Raster’s interest. understood I wasn’t getting good part. title to '-outstanding there was an You understood
“Q. understand. A. I don’t title?
“By mar- had been Nathan Kaster Mr. Campbell: way Á. The divorce? had secured a and his wife ried they in that interest Raster’s Nate it, sold I understood daughter, My bought. Nate I is what and that land, TERM, APRIL ' v. Kaster. Sidwell present the sale. There wife, wasn’t Raster’s former my arrangement sale between me and before the purchase daughter as to the matter of the and Sidwell any might re- or interest she have. Don’t dower myself about talk member of between agreed my daughter’s either of had not title. She pur- join conveying if I land to Sidwell, us prepared .Attorney contract Eolston with with it. chased talking anything about Don’t remember Sidwell. my lawyer, not" sale. Eolston was he him before the representing the land I don’t know what value Sidwell. only really I was. was the bidder. *7 you you it At didn’t know what “Q. bid, the time ’’ ? A. a hundred. Or
was $5 $50 worth— Branziger testified for defendants: D. Z. "Was standing present were sale. at the Sanders Sidwell together sale. About a week before at the time of the he been to told me that had see Sanders sale, Sidwell arrangements buy with Sanders to it. had made selling all the that Kaster He said the sheriff was reasonably land. The land was then worth had per per It now worth acre. acre. Saw $125 $100 together right They after the sale. and Sidwell Sanders day talking land. The were about the sale next an acre what told raised over Sidwell me Sanders $2.50 agreed acquainted I with the to. am value of the he had ’’ My of mile it. land is within land. one-fourth defendant, corroborated Bran- Smith, for Charles ziger as to Sanders and Sidwell as to land and value being together at the sale. Ewing, land testified, that the defendant,
James per acre at the time of sale. was worth $100 That he Lee testified: was Defendant, he Nathan L: Kaster. At time of sale, son of defendant possession his father had as tenant of been per His The land was then worth ever since. acre. $100 separated. father and wife were The sheriff’s showed that Sanders deed paid sixty per the one hundred and acre for acres $68.50 COURT OF
Sidwell leaving the foreclosure balance due on his judgment at time of trial of $924. acres,
As to further additional testi- mony given plaintiff, nothing Sanders. He knew except mortgage trouble there was on land. He did right know Nate Kaster claimed the court had no bought judgment. property to render the He own on his and on what said that the pass good judgment. would nobody title. Never sale read the bought They Had examine he it before the land. good give posses- title was have to would right hway. paid- sion Witness $2,000 for it, that thought all he worth. it was He did know when he per he would it for bid sell $77.50 acre. Sidwell got (Sidwell) he if witness said, it, would like to have bought but the was not it, stated until after witness it. understanding
“Q. Wasn’t it that Sidwell you wouldn’t A. it, bid if I did? don’t know, I don’t say why right by, remember. Can’t stood me say didn’t on it. bid Couldn’t it was within less an hour than after I bid on it that I sold it to Sidwell. expect bought two I hours. If I I the.land, was agree price. it to to sell if Sidwell, we could on a There buy others were that wanted to it. remember Don’t *8 agreed anyone I had sell whether it to else the before sale.”
Charles Smith, defendant, testified: That he was appraisers Fogle “judgment” one of the under the in setting appraised forty off and homestead, the acres per thought they acre. at $75 He made reasonable always appraisement, say reasonably but he did was something worth He also testified that there $100. was mortgage about a said at the of the time a thou- mortgage, sand-dollar which covered the one hundred sixty forty as and well as acres.' the Fogle in
The v. record Nathan L. Kaster case, execution in which the were acres sold APEIL 18b TEEM, 289]' by plaintiff, purchased by and Sanders, the sheriff fol- evidence. was as introduced : lows Schuyler County Court,
“In Circuit D.A. Term, October ‘‘ Schuyler Missouri, “State County of —ss. of composing E.E. the firm Fogle and “C. C. Fogle, Plaintiffs, of Fogle, & Defendant. L.
“N. Kaster, plaintiffs in the above entitled now “Come 'at that, all times men- and state hereinafter cause they partners are and still were business under tioned, Fogle Fogle. style name of and film & their of action cause defend- “And judgments by and the orders the Pro- that, ant state County, Schuyler Missouri, Court of made bate pro- D. day A. and recorded of June 30th pages county in Volume records of said bate duly adjudged defendant was 474 thereof, and this incapable managing and mind his affairs, of unsound judg- probate court, said orders its and said and appointed Sloop one John and constituted ments, Sloop guardian of defendant, and said and curator John guardian duly qualified and acted as thereafter day 7th of June A. D. until the 1916', curator and mentioned. hereinafter Sloop while said John
“That acting defendant and afore- curator of such as day September, 20th on the an ac- said, plaintiffs probate court these were wherein said tion against the Nathan L. estate of Kaster demandants person, defendant), (this an insane given duly in favor and made of these Sloop, guardian plaintiffs cu- John insane, defendant, for Nathan L. rator prop- costs, to be levied of the sum $570 erty L. in the insane, Nathan Kaster the said hands *9 guardian curator to and administered, of said and OF SUPREME COURT MISSOURI,
Sidwell v. Kaster. by probate judgment was court classified and said said placed demands; in the fifth class of ordered transcript judgment duly of herewith said certified ‘Exhibit A.’ filed and marked judgments by the of thereafter, “That orders and April probate day 5th A. D. said court made Schuyler County, probate in 1916,recorded records page in at this de- Missouri, 11, thereof, Volume capable adjudged fendant mind and sound managing guardian and curator was and said affairs, regular ordered to make final settlement at the next guardian term of and cu- court; said said pro- rator thereafter his final settlement with filed said judgments by and said court, bate its and court, orders day on the 7th A. D. 1916, made probate June recorded county page records of said Volume approved discharg- 515,thereof, final said settlement and ed said and curator.
“That the' aforesaid in favor of these yet plaintiffs subsisting judgment remains a valid and wholly unpaid; same is due and reason premises the defendant owes and stands indebted plaintiffs to the seventy the sum of hundred five day dollars, with thereon interest 7th of June per per D.A. at the rate of six cent annum until paid, plaintiffs pray all of which defendant costs this action. ’ ’ ‘‘ Fogle & Fogle, Plaintiffs. duly
Defendant was served with but summons, made appearance, rendered w;as default on regular October 17, 1917, at term of October said plaintiffs, favor of the Thereafter, $616.55. plaintiff October 30, 1917, execution under purchased Sanders the land issued. The sheriff’s regular conveyed deed on this sale was on its face April to" land Sanders. On N. L. duly adjudged Kaster to be restored mind. *10 APRIL TERM, , in v. Kaster.
Sidwell and plaintiff’s sale purchase at execution After error a writ out due sued said defendant Kaster time, Appeals, City Court in said the Kansas Case to 212 S. judgment. [Fogle Kaster, v. which reversed the W. 565.] Schuy brought originally
The foreclosure suit was plaintiff, John County by ler said Sanders, insane Sloop, Kaster, L. of N. and curator day March, person, the 16th N. Kaster, and said L. setting up that at answer, filed 1916. The defendants given, Kaster of trust were the time the note and deed Af consideration. was the note was without insane, and change Putnam to of venue defendants took a terwards, up denying reply, County, plaintiff matter set filed where and on, note sued on where answer, and sixty forclosing and one hundred deed of trust on said 1917. Motions November 28, rendered on was acres, there filed consideration and trial and arrest were new ' April December On term, continued until regular adjournment November after the 8, 1917, special plaintiff execution be issued to caused a term, County, Schuyler which was to the Sheriff of directed and the land was 15,1917, December him delivered on to February on while said motions 11,1918, thereunder sold motions Afterwards, determination. under' were appealed defendant Kaster this overruled were .to [Sanders affirmed. was v. where court, fore- The sheriff’s -deed in 222 S. W. 133.] Kaster, conveyed regular proceedings i face, on its was Insure sixty to the acres hundred Sanders. one plaintiffs, as to the hun- found for the one The court sixty defendants as acres, dred appealed parties duly to this where Both acres. appeals consolidated. were their sixty one hundred and
I. acres. The First, party not made a to the fore the trustee was fact validity, proceeding, no manner affected its closure SUPREME COURT OF ;just bearing salé, and could had no have nec that he neither a we because, hold, iaieCl0SUr6 party. essary proper hold, nor We also party own fault that wife was defendant’s proper party, defendant, defendant that,' if she was a question by should have raised answer demurrer, failing and' do if there defect, he waived the so, (cid:127) [Sanders was. l. c. If these 135.] W. S. sold, facts affected the which the land de *11 complain fendants have no thereof. impressed Nor are we the with contention that there conspiracy plaintiffs, plaintiff was a between the not to is no evidence Sidwell was bid. There that he agree- would have bid had he made no bid, intended buy get ment to He from Sanders. could a clear outstanding title, because the dower wife, Kaster’s having which we have seen was Kaster’s fault for not impleaded her in the Plain- him defendant case. tiff Sanders did not bid, testified Sidwell because he buy only could Kaster’s interest. For same reason, impressed prop- we are not with the that the insistence price. erty any inadequacy sold for Mrs. Kaster’s being only dower not included but inter- per price paid by plaintiff est of acre, $68.50 price, was a fair Sanders, all for the evidence, purchased by being interest It is far from Sanders. price inadequate equity so as to warrant a court of setting the sale. aside plaintiff that the
We sale to rule, Sanders, 160 respects. valid in was all acres forty plaintiff II. The As to acres. Sanders paid per acre therefor. The evidence tends $50 to show subject mortgage. This $1,000 was would make the per paid equivalent to acre for Kaster’s inter- $75 subject to his wife’s dower. This a fair therein, est price property interest sold. just What we have with reference to the said, con- spiracy by appellant plaintiffs, claimed between APRIL TERM, Vol. 289]
Sidwell t. bidding hundred should refrain on the one sixty applies to the contention also same acres, forty-acre
to the tract. earnestly It counsel learned contended III. 'Fogle judgment ex- that the under the for defendants, purchased on ecution which Sanders petition absolutely in that because acres void, ju- that the court had no case shows its face circuit subject- jurisdiction of risdiction, and jurisdiction: exclusively in the vested matter was ° City opinion of the Kansas court. Action^6 Appeals, in was delivered that'case, Court reciting petition, fol- after by Bland, J., and (212 565) : S. W. lows fails to think that the cause state
“We judgment pro upon a rendered It sues action. es is a in rem bate Peyton, (Moody Mo. 482, l. c. 36 W. S. tate Rep. 604), attempts this Am. to make St. personam basis [Johnson v. Kaster, This cannot be done. defendant. *12 App. 196.] l. c. 204 An allow 501, 503, S. W. Mo. 199 against the of court an insane in the estate ance judgment personal against person made cannot a sanity. person [Johnson when restored Kas such v. judg supra; 587.] 79 Chadwick, Brown v. Mo. The ter, is reversed.” ment interpret language the the we of learned
As petition no of action, that the stated cause be it rules personal judgment a claim sued not the cause judgment only against in the defendant but a g*uar hands his estate the of his former rem hold that not,, therefore, dian. decision does jurisdiction, of court no unless the had circuit failure deprives petition a of action the court state cause jurisdiction. Par In v. this is not the law. Cole of But ker-Washington 749, l. 766, 207 S. W. c. Co., Mo. OF MISSOURI, SUPREME COURT
Sidwell v. Kaster. majority-of Court Banc announced rule in such cases, as follows: judgment jurisdic general of a court
“That of parties having controversy to' the tion, having before it, power to determine the of class cases for which prayed, not relief is is void, because the failure of petition to a state action, cause not, is open proposition a reason, that to collateral attack, is a established this State, sustained the over weight whelming authority Citing elsewhere.” support of conclusion: its Dollarhide v. Parks, Mo. l. Tube v. 188; c. 58; Works Ice Machine Co., 201 Mo. v. 257 Mo. Railroad, 168; Rivard Jarrell v. Laurel Coal fully Co., 75 & Land Va.W. annotated in L. R. A. quoted pp. 1916E, ‘The court also the fol Winningham lowing from Mo. Trueblood, 149 c. l. complaint does, a “Whether 580, 581: not state question ju a of action as far is, cause a concerns importance; complaint of no risdiction, if the states belonging general case class over which the au thority extends, jurisdiction, there is power to has the court decide whether the is pleading cases).' (citing good or bad In all cases, collateral altogether on the attack rendered, inad missible.” hold, that, City we
So the Kansas Court of Fogle Apneals in Case did hold the circuit court had and its void simply reason, but that in that case did personal a cause of action for state defendant Kaster. earnestly TV. But it contended one of Anpeals cases cited learned Court in namely, App. Case, Johnson 199 Mo.
which the was the same in the Fo- as that, h°td cases, circuit ^ase’ circuit court, jurisdiction, court no had it was, because in ef- attempt fect, to enforce the APRIL TERM, Sidwell v. Kaster.
probate by execution court from circuit which court, would, effect, remove administration of the insane probate person’s estate from there- that, jurisdiction court the circuit had no fore, of the sub- ject-matter. agree We cannot to this conclusion reached by the court in that case. The court has not jurisdiction proceedings against per- exclusive insane sons. 514, Section Revised Statutes 1909, is follows: against per-
“In all actions commenced such insane process guardian; be shall served on his son, and on against person, guardian, such insane or his against property the execution shall such, be his ” only. In Frost v. 127 Mo. l. c. Redford, 498, was held under Section 5544, Revised Statutes 1889, which lánguage in the same Section 514, Revised Statutes quoted, just person; guardian an insane 1909, under ship, should sued in the circuit be court. The court page 498: said, property
“lie continues be owner may guardian, sue be his sued defend his (and) may prop- an execution issue his erty. [R. 5544.] property rights S. sec. His exemption rights changed by under the laws were not being placed reason of declared his insane and ’’ guardianship. that case
Since Avas determined, Section Re- requires Avas AÚsedStatutes enacted, insane, property pay ward, if not sufficient to all prorated among full, to be debts his creditor's. way in But this restricts the of the cir- entertain a cuit suit him. After an in- person adjudged sane restored to mind, provides, Section Statutes 1909, Revised that: “He discharged custody guar- shall care and immediately dian shall settle his accounts and restore person belong- remaining to such ing all thinas in his hands appertaining to him.” *14 COURT OF
Sidwell v. Kaster. brought, when suit was as shown that, So adjudged petition, had been restored Kaster by the right and the administration his estate mind, jurisdiction probate ended court was in the him that court over and his estate had terminated. subject any Consequently, he to suit the was same person against him. valid claims other Louis v. Mo. Hollrah, The case St. was personal to recover a an insane suit person person was while necessaries, such brought guardianship. It circuit court. The that the stated cause of defense action, jurisdiction. court had no This circuit court dis setting opin After both contentions. out in allowed its relating persons to insane ion statutes and their appli -which statutes were the same 'as estates, those (l. 85): in this court said case, c. cable gives well if a law, ‘That, “It statute settled remedy affirmative, containing any in the without ex- negative, implied press or for a matter which ac- away at common this does not law, tionable take remedy, party may. law but the still common sue com- upon as well In law, mon statute. such cases regarded remedy merely will be statute cum- where a new or the But, ulative. means of ac- given, adequate quiring remedy it an are given violating it is in the same statute, then in- statutory jured parties remedy.’ are confined to the many [Citing cases.] act
“In order this should have the effect con- ousting ju- counsel for defendant, tended court, vesting of the circuit risdiction the same in probate only remedy it must afford but' adequate remedy, remedy an must be exclu- n requirements. probate It none sive. fills these possesses jurisdiction, only ais court limited court power upon statute, isas it conferred and can APE1L TEEM, v. Kaster. only prescribed in the mhnner its exercise upon not confer This act does by statute. adequate and afford power determine hear, in that court in an action ato suitor
relief provide any pro- person. Nor method of insane *15 purpose. providing of In instead fact, for cedure provides remedy it court, in that none at an exclusive simply upon a limitation It is his de- for such suitor. all apply limitation not to cases does and that like mand, against demands but is confined to an hand, in the one accruing granting person of before the letters insane nothing guardianship. in There is this contention.” of language, it to clear, is it From the above seems jurisdiction court has in the circuit suits us, persons, they against insane whether arose all on claims guardianship, during and that stat- or the the before utory up probate remedy proving for claims the court proceedings guardianship in the estate is not per- all after not at the insane exist exclusive right his'proper- adjudged mind, restored to his son is discharged, as the ty to him, returned Fogle petition in the case su- Kaster, in the stated it pra. true, in that is was not case, The based original on the claim but as allowed in the claim, alleged but it that said allowance consti- defendant, indebtedness of which tuted judgment ordinary plaintiffs prayed in cases. Whether petition constituted said a cause of in the stated facts entitling personal plaintiffs action question for, prayed circuit was a court jurisdiction question. to determine that It decide. had wrong, mater- it determined Whether personal did not constitute a facts stated lia- If ial. petition, part bility defendant, course, on the way but no action, this de- a cause to state failed prived power, jurisdiction de- court —the —to question. jurisdic- circuit court had The termine COURT OF
Sid-well v. Kaster. personal judgments against for- in all actions tion discharged persons, merly who had been insane ju-' guardianship, only was the did have Consequently, risdiction in cases. Fogle Kaster case not an defendant jurisdiction, nullity for want of but most
absolute judgment. simply an erroneous disapprove what Johnson We, therefore, App., supra, 199 Mo. Kaster, v. having circuit court such cases. judgment in the case Y. being simply but erroneous, the .void, title of the good. Sanders to the acres was stranger, party, and not a He was to that Erroneous^’ supersedeas stay- proceeding. There was no Eeversai. ing the execution, and, therefore, fact that subsequently the Kansas reversed Appeals impaired City way in no title. Court *16 Vogler Montgomery, [Shields 315; v. 29 v. Mo. Powers, Niemeyer, Mo. 100 Mo. 577; Schmidt 207; Wood Ogden, App. 42.] Mo. plaintiffs’ that hold, therefore, We the to title both sixty forty hundred and acres the the and acres is valid, they and that are the thereof, owners as described in petition, and that defendants have no interest Consequently, plain- judgment below for therein. sixty one hundred and affirmed, tiffs as to the is acres forty to defendants and acres and the case remanded with is reversed directions court to set aside its to the circuit plaintiffs forty enter and are acres, forty possession acres, and entitled of said owners rigdit nor thereof, have no title and the there- defendants possession plaintiffs recover the of said and that to, monthly together defendants, rents, from with acres per day month, of dollars 11th the rate ten at APRIL TERM 1921. Railways v. K. C. Co. Hill possession February, until tbe thereof de- of is sitting. Ragland, Brown and GG., livered to them. foregoing opinion by PER CURIAM:—Tbe Small, opinion adopted tbe of court. 'tbe All tbe C., judges concur. HILL,
IRENE MARIE Pro Ami, v. CITY KANSAS Appellant. COMPANY, RAILWAYS One, July 11, Division 1921. Injury Pleading NEGLIGENCE: Kansas: No of Statutes. In an damages injuries personal negligently action for inflicted in- Kansas, plaintiff pleads in which no statute or ordinance but general negligence, state a cause action under law and Kansas, wherein defendant invoked no statute or other law applies, properly of Missouri the case law and Mis- tried under negligence. souri rules of girl years -: on Track: Pedestrian Humanitarian A Rule. five age went brother to a her fountain near the intersection getting they after streets and water started retrace their steps railway tracks, upon reaching northward across and upon girl dropped east-bound little tracks cars ran the looking penny ap- time east-bound car brother, having proached, and the reached the track on which sister, hearing cars ran an exclamation from west-bound looking her, penny for the saw and shouted to turned her track; get there confused off the but she did became fifty away, the car then feet it could evidence *17 fifty feet, stopped'in been much less than that the view was have talking seventy-five feet, motorman was clear for at least looking ahead, gong one and not was sound- to some .Held, given. warning the evidence was sufficient ed or other jury rule, and under the humanitarian take the case to province being to determine the credi- their submitted became so facts, i foregoing bility the witnesses who testified to Pleading and Acts: Instruc- -: Rule: Concurrent Humanitarian negligence constituting the humanitarian tion. The facts
289 Mo.—13