Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 Mo. 269

Carder v. Culbertson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1889-10-15

-—Hon. J. M. Davis, Judge. (1) The curator’s deed and judgment of approval by the probate court are not merely erroneous and valid until corrected and disaffirmed, but are void on their face and ab initio. Stat. 1865, secs. 30, 469; R. S. 1879, secs. 2586-8; Hancock v. Hubbard, 19 Pick. 167; Shriver v. Lynn, 2 How. 60; Farrow v. Dean, 24 Mo. 16; Beal v. Harmon, 38 Mo. —; Watts v. Pond, 4 Met. [Ky.] 61; Woodcock v. Bowman, 4 Met. [Ky.] 40; Bell v. Clark, 2 Met. [Ky.] 573.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““By stipulation filed it is agreed that the sole question to be determined is whether the curator’s.deed is valid. There can be no hesitation on this point; it is a plain matter of statutory provision. Sections 28, 29 and 30, page 469, General Statutes 1865, control this case. “The last-named section declares: ‘No real estate of any minor, sold under the provisions of this chapter, shall be sold for less than three-fourths of its appraised value, ’ etc. The probate court had no jurisdiction to approve such a sale. Its order of approval was, therefore, coram non judice, and the deed showing the facts already recited was void on its face.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Miller v. Staggs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1889-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1973

5 state decisions

201889189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sherwood, J.

¶1Ejectment for sixty acres of land in Carroll c.ounty. Plaintiffs were minors when this, their land, was sold for their education, in 1869, by their curator, under an order, made by the probate court for the sale of the land at public vendue. The land was appraised at one hundred and fifty dollars, and sold for ten dollars to Wm. H. Long; six years thereafter he sold by warranty deed to Andrew Heudricks for three thousand dollars. In April, 1884, Hendricks conveyed by like deed for same consideration to defendant.

¶2By stipulation filed it is agreed that the sole question to be determined is whether the curator’s deed is valid. There can be no hesitation on this point; it is a plain matter of statutory provision. Sections 28, 29 and 30, page 469, General Statutes, 1865, control this case.

¶3The last-named section declares: “No real estate of any minor, sold under the provisions of this chapter, shall be sold for less than three-fourths of its appraised value,” etc. The probate court had no jurisdiction to approve such a sale. Its order of approval was, therefore, coram non judice, and the deed showing the facts already recited was void on its face.

¶4We reverse , the judgment and remand the cause with directions to enter a judgment for plaintiffs, after having taken an account of rents and profits.

All concur, but Barclay, J., who dissents.
/100/mo/269 · .json · Public domain