Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

75 Mo. 64

Gansner v. Franks

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1881

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1881-10-15

<p>Set-off. A debt due to a defendant as guardian cannot be set off against a demand due by him individually.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1881-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1930

3 state decisions

10188118901900191019201930decided

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 →

Hough, J.

¶1The plaintiffs sue the defendant upon a lease executed to' him by Catherine Gansner, before her marriage with her co-plaintiff, and while she was the widow of one Christopher Frank. After the defendant went into the possession of the premises leased to him, he became guardian of four children of said Christopher Frank by a former marriage. The defendant contends that a portion 'of the rent which he covenanted to pay, of right belongs to said children, and that being their guardian, he has a right to retain the same for their use and benefit. The court allowed the defendant the amount claimed by him, in his capacity as guardian, out of the rent due from him individually to the., plaintiffs under his lease from Mrs. Gansner, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the balance. In this the circuit court committed error. Conceding that under the circumstances of this case, which it is unnecessary to recite, the children were entitled to a portion of the rents, the defendant was not entitled to set-off' against a demand due by him individually, a sum alleged to be due him as guardian. The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
/75/mo/64 · .json · Public domain