Legal Opinion

Pace v. Richardson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 8, 1918PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal from Independence Chancery Court; George T. Humphries, Chancellor; I. The court had jurisdiction. 85 Ark. 101. 2. The guardian was duly appointed. K. & C. Dig. v] § 4225, 4168, 4175; Const. 1874; Art. 937; 64 Ark. 381; 15 A. & E. Ene. L. 46; 12 R. C. L. 1117; Peck-on Dora. Rel. § 135; 15 Ky. L. Rep. 237; 18 Tex. 367; 18 N. J. Eq. 204; 15 Abb. Pr. 12; 2 Am. Law J. 128; 47 Ark. 558; 26 R. I. 351; K. & C. Dig. § 6082. 3. The appointment of a guardian was valid {supra) and he had authority to make the contract under the direction of the probate court. 38 Ark. 146; 98 Id. 63; 85 Id. 104. 4.…

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD, J.,

(after stating the facts).(1) Even though the contract .sued on were void the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to entitle appellant to recover on a gumvtum meruit. The chancery Court had general jurisdiction over the .subject matter in enforcing the alleged lien of attorney Pace on the property alleged to have been recovered by him for his client, Mrs. Bichardson. Greenlee v. Rowland, 85 Ark. 101.

Appellees contend that the probate court had no authority to appoint a guardian under section 3824 of Kirby’s Digest which provides “that every guardian or curator .shall continue…

2Cases cited3 opinions

Watson v. HendersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
Greenlee v. RowlandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
Waldrip v. TulleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886

3Cited by4 opinions

Moss v. MooseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
Shinley v. RicksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
Gordon v. BurnsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941
Moss v. MooseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931