Hines v. Kemp

Supreme Court of Missouri

Hines v. Kemp

89 S.W.2d 57, 338 Mo. 122, 1935 Mo. LEXIS 578

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedDecember 18, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.W.2d 57 (Hines v. Kemp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines v. Kemp, 89 S.W.2d 57, 338 Mo. 122, 1935 Mo. LEXIS 578 (Mo. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

COLLET, J.

This ease was argued and submitted as a companion ease to the ease of'Hines, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs v. Hook, Guardian, decided at this term. The facts in both eases are identical with the one exception that in the Hook case the guardian received money benefits from the United States for his ward during the year preceding the disputed guardian’s allowance, while in this case he did not.

The Court of Appeals in the United States Veterans’ Bureau v. Glenn held that under the statute (See. 607, R. S. 1929), a guardian was entitled to compensation not exceeding five per cent of the income received by him from investments made with the ward’s funds. The statute clearly justifies that construction. The conclusions we expressed in the Hook case apply here. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accord with our opinion in Hines, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs v. Hook, Guardian, 338 Mo. 114, 89 S. W. (2d) 52.

All concur.

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

COLLET, J.

This ease was argued and submitted as a companion ease to the ease of'Hines, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs v. Hook, Guardian, decided at this term. The facts in both eases are identical with the one exception that in the Hook case the guardian received money benefits from the United States for his ward during the year preceding the disputed guardian’s allowance, while in this case he did not.

The Court of Appeals in the United States Veterans’ Bureau v. Glenn held that under the statute (See. 607, R. S. 1929), a guardian was entitled to compensation not exceeding five per cent of the income received by him from investments made with the ward’s funds. The statute clearly justifies that construction. The conclusions we expressed in the Hook case apply here. The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accord with our opinion in Hines, Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs v. Hook, Guardian, 338 Mo. 114, 89 S. W. (2d) 52.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W.2d 57, 338 Mo. 122, 1935 Mo. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-kemp-mo-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack