In re Ford
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — Eon. Charles D. Stewart, Judge. “(1), The “complaint verified by affidavit and ten days notice” as required by section 42 are jurisdictional and necessary, in order to authorize a court to act in the removal of a guardian or curator. Sec. 42, R. S. 1899; In re Estate of Padgett, 114 Mo. App. 812; Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, 87 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — Eon. Charles D. Stewart, Judge. “(1), The “complaint verified by affidavit and ten days notice” as required by section 42 are jurisdictional and necessary, in order to authorize a court to act in the removal of a guardian or curator. Sec. 42, R. S. 1899; In re Estate of Padgett, 114 Mo. App. 812; Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, 87 Mo. App. 9; 1 Woerner’s American Law of Administration, sec. 272. (2) There is no distinction between guardians and administrators as to their accounts and settlements. Oldham & Broaddus v. Trimble, 15 Mo. 225; State ex rel. v. Roland &…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION.
CAULFIELD, J.
— I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The question involved is whether the probate court has power upon mere citation to remove the guardian or curator of a minor for alleged mismanagement of the estate and failure to account in annual settlement for interest due, without any complaint in writing having been made by any person interested. It seems plain to me that the question must be answered in the negative. There are statutory provisions governing the manner of removal for such causes. [Sections 462 and 50, Revised Statutes 1909.] Section 462…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State ex rel. McManus v. MuenchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Desloge v. TuckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Sidwell v. JettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- City of St. Louis v. HollrahSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Jenkins v. MorrowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.