Conwill v. Livingston

Mississippi Supreme Court

Conwill v. Livingston

2 Miss. Dec. 549

Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided January 17, 1881·Published

Opinion

Opinion.

Per curiam:

Citation on the final account of the appellants’ testator, administrator of one Livingston, ivas served personally on the distributees alone, who were infants. There was no appointment of a guardian ad litem for them.

The service on the infants was unauthorized by law and amounted to nothing. It was essential that a guardian ad litem should be appointed, and the decree is, therefore, void. See Burrus v. Burrus, 56 Miss. 92.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion.

Per curiam:

Citation on the final account of the appellants’ testator, administrator of one Livingston, ivas served personally on the distributees alone, who were infants. There was no appointment of a guardian ad litem for them.

The service on the infants was unauthorized by law and amounted to nothing. It was essential that a guardian ad litem should be appointed, and the decree is, therefore, void. See Burrus v. Burrus, 56 Miss. 92.

Decree affirmed.

Conwill v. Livingston, 2 Miss. Dec. 549 (Mich. 1881).

Pincite

2 Miss. Dec. 549 (Conwill v. Livingston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related