Gillespie v. Hauenstein
Gillespie v. Hauenstein
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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Robert Gillespie v. R. Hauenstein
- Cited By
- 10 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. AotioN in Behalf op a Lunatic. How brought. Parties. Next friend,. A suit in behalf of a lunatic against the sureties on his deceased guardian’s bond is properly brought in the name of the lunatic suing by his guardian and next friend. Finney v. Speed, 71 Miss., 32. 2. Peobate Court. Decree appointing guardian. JwrisdicUon presumed. Collateral attach. A decree of the probate court appointing a guardian to a lunatic cannot be attacked collaterally, on the ground that it does not affirmatively appear that the court had jurisdiction over the lunatic, or that he had notice of the proceedings. Aimes v. Williams, ante, p. 760. 3. Chancery Court. Smt on gua/rclikm’s bond. Heirs of sutreby, when proper pcurbies. In a suit in chancery on a guardian’s bond, the heirs of a deceased surety are proper parties, where his estate has been finally administered and distributed, and it is sought to subject the same in the hands of the heirs.