Gillespie v. Hauenstein
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Thames v. Mississippi Ex Rel. Shoemaker (5th Cir. 1941)
- Honeywell v. Aaron (Miss. 1956)
- Stephens v. Moore (Miss. 1952)
- Dana v. Zerkowsky (Miss. 1942)
- Bolmer v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 1935)
- Cotton v. Harlan (Miss. 1920)
- Savings, Building & Loan Ass'n v. Tartt (Miss. 1902)
- Horne v. Tartt (Miss. 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The suit was properly brought by the lunatic suing by his guardian and next friend. The action is that of the lunatic, represented in its prosecution by others because of his incompetency. Finney v. Speed, 74 Miss., 32; Bull v. Dagenhard, 55 Ib., 602; Klaus v. State, 54 Ib., 644.
It is not competent, in this proceeding, to collaterally attack the decree appointing Bardwell guardian of the lunatic. Ames v. Williams, ante, p. 760.
The heirs at law and distributees of the deceased surety, Minniece, are proper parties defendant. Patty v. Williams, 71 Miss., 837; Van Winkle v. Smith, 26 Ib., 491; Garner v. Lyles, 35 Ib., 176; Ellis v. McGee, 63 Ib., 168; Buie v. Pollock, 55 Ib., 309.
The decree is reversed, demu/rrers overruled a/nd cause remanded, with lea/ue to the defendants to answer withiz% thirty days after mandate filed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.