TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barrett v. Provincher

John Barrett v. Joseph Provincher

Barrett v. Provincher, 58 N.W. 292 (Neb. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 21, 1894
Docket
No. 5141
Judges
Eyan
Citations
58 N.W. 29239 Neb. 7731894 Neb. LEXIS 98
Headnotes
Guardian and Ward. After the death of his ward, a guardian cannot commence or maintain an action for the collection of a debt due such ward.
Summary
Error from the district court of Fillmore county. Tried below before Morris, J. cited: Stinson v. Leary, 34 N. W. Eep. [Wis.], 63; Huntsman v. Fish, 30 N. W. Eep. [Minn.], 455; Jacobs v. Fouse, 23 Minn., 51. cited: Marlow v. Lacy, 2 S. W. Eep. [Tex.], 52; Alford v. Halbert, 12 S. W. Eep. [Tex.], 75; Fortson v. Alford, 62 Tex., 580.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Eyan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Eyan, C.

This action was commenced before a justice of the peace in Fillmore county, Nebraska, by the plaintiff in error, John Barrett, as guardian of Alanson Barrett, against the defendant in error, for the recovery of $72.30 for work and labor performed by Alanson Barrett for the defendant. The record recites that during the cross-examination of plaintiff it was developed that Alanson Barrett, his ward, was dead, and that thereupon counsel for the defendant moved the court to dismiss the case for the reason that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to sue. The motion was sustained and the cause dismissed at the cost of plaintiff.

The sole question presented in this court is whether or not, under the circumstances described, the plaintiff, as guardian, could maintain an action against the defendant for such sum as the defendant owed for labor of the deceased ward. Plaintiff relies upon Stinson v. Leary, 34 *774 N. W. Rep. [Wis.], 63, and on Huntsman v. Fish, 30 N. W. Rep. [Minn.], 455. In neither of these cases was the ward dead. He had merely reached the age of majority ; and it was properly held that for the purpose of the adjudication of rights as between the ward and guardian the relation continued until a settlement was made. In the case at bar, however, the relation was terminated by the death of the ward. For the collection of whatever sums that were due the estate of the deceased, an administrator or executor was the only representative party who could properly maintain the action. The judgment of the district court approving the proceedings in the justice court was right and is

Affirmed.

Post, J., not sitting.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1906: 11923: 11925: 11927: 119062026peak 1906 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bowden v. Jacksonville Electric Co.51 Fla. 152 (1906)
  2. Miller v. Shelton1925 OK 913, 241 P. 132
  3. Armon v. Craig214 N.W. 556 (Iowa 1927)
  4. City of Anadarko v. McKee1923 OK 210, 214 P. 700

Most recent

  1. Armon v. Craig214 N.W. 556 (Iowa 1927)
  2. Miller v. Shelton1925 OK 913, 241 P. 132
  3. City of Anadarko v. McKee1923 OK 210, 214 P. 700
  4. Bowden v. Jacksonville Electric Co.51 Fla. 152 (1906)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list