Ancell v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The proceedings in the prohate court, resulting in the guardian’s sale and deed to defendant bridge company, are void, for the reason that the plaintiffs had a homestead in the land. This involves a construction of certain provisions of chapter 34, R. S. 1899, entitled “Guardians and Curators,” in connection with chapter 37, entitled “Homesteads.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) The proceedings in the prohate court, resulting in the guardian’s sale and deed to defendant bridge company, are void, for the reason that the plaintiffs had a homestead in the land. This involves a construction of certain provisions of chapter 34, R. S. 1899, entitled “Guardians and Curators,” in connection with chapter 37, entitled “Homesteads.” The statutes are in pari materia and should be construed together. Sales v. Paving Co., 166 Mo. 671. The sale involved in this suit was under the provisions of sections 3504 and…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is a suit by Alonzo W., Florence A., and Thornton A. Ancell — the last named, a minor child of Thornton Ancell, deceased, suing by his guardian and curator, Thomas M. Williams— to set aside a certain deed made by their former guardian, Samuel Tanner, to 9.1 acres of land particularly described as follows: “Beginning at a point 1030 feet west of the northeast corner of section 4 at the intersection of the south right-of-way line of the Gray’s Point Terminal Railway and the west line of the public road lying in the northeast quarter of section 4, township 29, range 14 east, and extending…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Johnson v. BeazleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- West v. McMullenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- McVey v. McVeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Kaes v. GrossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Snodgrass v. CoppleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ussery v. HaynesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- National Board of Christian Women's Board of Missions of Christian Church v. FrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Daffron v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- State v. FultonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Green v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1930
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.