In re the Estate of Bomino
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) Conceding there has been an escheat of the personalty, still the heirs are not barred by limitation because (a) some of them are married women, and (b) included in the payment to the state is the sum of $800 net, rents collected by the administrator after Bomino’s death and following the land belonged to the heirs; (c) the statute required a special notice to be given if no known heirs existed, required the court to make the order…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) Conceding there has been an escheat of the personalty, still the heirs are not barred by limitation because (a) some of them are married women, and (b) included in the payment to the state is the sum of $800 net, rents collected by the administrator after Bomino’s death and following the land belonged to the heirs; (c) the statute required a special notice to be given if no known heirs existed, required the court to make the order of payment only after a year, in meantime directing the administrator to loan out the funds for a fixed term not…
1Opinion of the Court
Philips, C.
This is a proceeding instituted in the probate court of St. Louis county by the heirs and distributees of the estate of Peter Bomino, deceased, for an order on the state treasurer to pay to claimants as the heirs of said decedent, the balance found 'by said court to have been due on final settlement and paid into the state treasury. Due notice was given to the circuit or ■county attorney who appeared and defended for the state. The probate court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction over the ■subject matter.
The case, after passing on appeal…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Windsor v. McVeighSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Woodruff v. TaylorSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847
- Riddick v. WalshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- State ex rel. Missouri Mutual Life Insurance v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. ShacklettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- United States v. HarmonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1891
- White v. ChaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Grier v. KennanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Colorado E. Ry. Co. v. Union Pac. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1890
- Winsor Coal Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1892
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.