Mead v. Bakewell
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The settlement was void, because no exhibit of the account was filed and no notice was given. — Wag.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. The settlement was void, because no exhibit of the account was filed and no notice was given. — Wag. Stats. 66, sects. 48, 50 ; The State v. Hosier, 61 Mo. 544; Winborn v. King, 35 Miss. 157 ; Robinson v. Steele, 5 Ala. 473 : Willis v. Willis, 16 Ala. 656. The appearance of the ward in this case was not a waiver of notice. —Jacobs v. Rouse, 23 Minn. 51; Scott v. Hull, 14 Ind. 136 ; Anderson v. Brown, 9 Mo. 638 ; Smith v. Rollins, 25 Mo. 408; Wade v. Lobdell, 4 Cush. 510. cited: Presbyterian Church v. Mcllhenney, 61 Mo. 540.
1Opinion of the CourtBakewell, J.
On January 18, 1877, the following entry was made on the record of proceedings in the Probate Court of St. Louis: —
“Curatorship of Ida B. Fell — Settlement, Ward 18, and satisfaction.
“ Now comes Arthur T. Bakewell, curator of Ida B. Fell, and states that his said ward has lately attained the age of eighteen years, and exhibits a settlement of his account as curator, duly verified by affidavit, up to the time of his said *550ward’s majority, upon examination whereof the court finds said account duly balanced, and no balance for or against said curator or said ward. And thereupon also comes said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Picot v. O'FallonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864
- Dicks v. HatchSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Jacobs v. FouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
- State ex rel. Thornton v. HosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Robinson v. SteeleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. SwinkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1969
- May v. MaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Berkshire v. HoverMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900