Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Mo. 375

Gillett v. Camp

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1856

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1856-10-15

The amended petition in this case is as follows : “ Plaintiff states that in the year of our Lord 1848, he was appointed guardian of Elvira Debo, a minor at that time, under the age of twenty-one years., by the Probate'Court of the county of Lafayette, in the state of Wisconsin, at which time the said Elvira owned an interest in several negroes in Marion county, Missouri, worth about ¡$1000, and which interest is now much larger ; and said negroes are still in the said…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1901

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Soon, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The case came up on a demurrer to the petition. Camp, with his wife, who had been a ward of Gillett, resided in this state. Gillett, who had been guardian of Mrs. Camp, was a citizen of Wisconsin, where he was appointed her guardian. Mrs. Camp, it seems, had no estate in Wisconsin, at least none ever came to the hands of her guardian, if his accounts are true and just. Upon no other notice than that of a publication in the newspapers while Camp and his wife were living in this state, Gillett went into a probate court, in the state of Wisconsin, and established a demand against Mrs. Camp, as his ward. This proceeding, in a probate court in the state of Wisconsin, against citizens of Missouri, with no other than constructive notice, is *379maintained to be a judicial proceeding witbin the meaning of the constitution of tbe United States, and as such is entitled to such faith and credit in all the other states as it enjoyed in the state of Wisconsin. The record does not inform us what credit was due to this proceeding by the laws of Wisconsin; but we think we may say, however great that credit may be, it was not a record nor judicial proceeding within the contemplation of the constitution and laws of the United States. The authorities are uniform that a judgment in one state against a citizen of another state, on constructive notice, is a nullity, irrespective of the faith and credit that may be given to it by the law of the state where it is rendered. (See 2 Cow. & Hill’s notes, 907.) There was no error, therefore, in sustaining the demurrer to the first count in the declaration or petition.

¶3But there was a second count for money paid and expenses incurred towards the education and maintenance of the wife of the plaintiff. Under the liberality now allowed in pleading, we can not say that this count was insufficient.

¶4In overruling the demurrer to this count in the petition, we do not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion favorable to the plaintiff’s claim. The case is before us on a demurrer, consequently we can know nothing of the circumstances under which the charges against the defendants are preferred. A guardian can not make what accounts he sees fit on behalf of his ward, and expect them to be allowed as a matter of course. He must have regard to her expectations in life, and educate her accordingly. The other judges concurring, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

/23/mo/375 · .json · Public domain