Pritchard v. Hannah

196 P. 517, 59 Mont. 298, 1921 Mont. LEXIS 198
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1921
DocketNo. 4,287
StatusPublished

This text of 196 P. 517 (Pritchard v. Hannah) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pritchard v. Hannah, 196 P. 517, 59 Mont. 298, 1921 Mont. LEXIS 198 (Mo. 1921).

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered for the defendant after a demurrer was sustained to the complaint.

The action was brought to recover the sum of $593.60, which [1] plaintiff claims to have advanced for the benefit of the estate of Thomas Robotham, an incompetent person. The complaint alleges: That the plaintiff is under the age of twenty-one years, to-wit, of the age of fourteen and one-half years, [300]*300and that on December 6, 1916, Jessie Pritchard was duly appointed by the district court of Granite county her guardian ad litem for the purpose of this action; that on October 31, 1910, Thomas Eobotham was adjudged to be an incompetent person, and has since that time continued to be incompetent; that on June 2, 1913, the defendant E. A. Hannah was appointed by the district court of Granite county the guardian of his person and estate, and, having qualified, entered upon and has since continued in the discharge of his duties as such; that prior to December 3, 1913, E. A. Hannah & Co., bankers at Philipsburg, Montana, had made certain advancements to the estate of Thomas Eobotham and had paid out certain moneys for its use and benefit, which aggregated the sum of $593.60; that on that date this sum was due to E'. A. Hannah & Co.; that a claim for the amount had been presented to E. A. Hannah, as guardian, and had been approved by the court as a charge upon the estate of the incompetent; that the estate consisted wholly of 200 acres of farm land situate in Granite county; that the said land was of the value of $5,000; that on June 16, 1913, the defendant guardian filed his petition in the district court of Granite county, praying for an order authorizing him to sell all of the' land for the purpose of paying the-indebtedness; that on July 12 the court granted the order prayed for, and that pursuant to it the defendant, on September 22, sold the land to one Olson for the sum of $5,000; that the defendant thereupon returned his account of sale to the district court with his petition for confirmation; that prior to the hearing Annie Eobotham, the wife of the incompetent, filed her objections in writing to the confirmation of the sale and asked the court that it be vacated; that after a hearing of the petition and the objections on’December 2 the court took the matter under advisement; that on December 3 the plaintiff, at the request of Annie Eobotham, paid to E. A. Hannah the sum due to E. A. Hannah & Co.; and that in this way the indebtedness was fully paid and discharged. It is then alleged: “That Annie Eobotham herein named at all times herein mentioned [301]*301was, and now is, the wife of Thomas Robotham, insane; that the real estate hereinabove described at all times herein mentioned was, and now is, the home of the said Annie Robotham; that upon the third day of December, 1913, at the instance and request of Annie Robotham, wife of Thomas Robotham as aforesaid, plaintiff paid to E. A. Hannah, guardian of the estate of Thomas Robotham, the sum of $593.60; that such payment was made by the plaintiff to pay off the sums of money owing by the estate of Thomas Robotham to E. A. Hannah & . Company, * * * and on account of which indebtedness the said guardian had requested and petitioned the sale of the real estate and home of the said Thomas Robotham and his wife; that thereupon the said E'. A. Hannah, guardian, paid to said E. A. Hannah & Co. * * * the money so advanced and paid to him by the plaintiff, to-wit, $593.60, and such payment (constituted) was a full payment, settlement, satisfaction, and discharge of all sums of money owing by said estate to said E. A. Hannah & Co.; * * * that said payment was made by plaintiff as herein alleged at the instance and request of Annie Robotham, wife of Thomas Robotham, a? herein alleged, and for the sole and only purpose of paying the claim and account foregoing of E. A. Hannah & Co. against said estate and in order to dispense with the necessity of having the real estate foregoing sold or disposed of; that such payment was made by plaintiff at the instance and request of Annie Robotham in order that said home of Annie Robotham and Thomas Robotham might be retained and be not sold, and in order that the sale thereof be not confirmed, but that the confirmation of such sale be refused by said district court,. the former grounds and necessities for such sale being removed and abated for the time being by such payment; that thereafter, on the third day of December, 1913, in the district court of the third judicial district of the state of Montana, in and for the county of Granite, in the matter of the confirmation of said sale of real estate, the following proceedings were had in said court, all of which is shown by reference to page 613, volume 3, of Probate [302]*302Journal of said district court, and which said journal entry is and reads as follows: ‘That on Wednesday the third day of December, 1913, the following proceedings were had in this court, to-wit: The return and account and report of sale of real estate and the objections thereto which were heard and submitted to the court on yesterday, December 2, 1913, having been considered by the court, now on this day the court, in consideration of the offer of Annie Eobotham, the objector herein, to pay the sum of $593.60, the amount due (her) to E'. A. Hannah & Co., and which said sum has already been paid by the said Annie Eobotham to the said E. A. Hannah & Co., and in consideration also of her agreeing to pay the amount of the necessary costs and disbursements incurred herein by the guardian of the said insane person for the publication of the order to show cause why an order of sale of real estate should not be granted herein, and for the publication of the notices of sale of real estate herein, and the court being of the opinion that it is for the best interests of the estate of the said Thomas Eobotham, insane, and that it is also for the best interests of the said Annie Eobotham, the wife of the said insane person, that said sale should not be confirmed, and it appearing to the court that it is not now necessary that said sale should be confirmed in order to raise money to support or maintain the said Annie Eobotham, the wife of the said insane person: Now, therefore, it is ordered, and this does order, that said sale be, and the same is hereby, vacated and set aside, and that the same be not confirmed by this court, ami the court hereby refuses to confirm said sale.’ ” ' It is.further alleged that, because of the payment so made by plaintiff to the guardian, the necessity for the sale of the real estate ceased, and it became and was no longer necessary that it be sold; that the claim and account of E. A. Hannah & Co. was fully discharged; that the payment went directly to, and inured to the immediate benefit of, the estate of Thomas Eobotham, the incompetent, in the manner alleged, and that no part of the money so paid by plaintiff has ever been repaid to her, and the whole thereof, together with [303]*303interest at the rate of eight per cent from December 3, 1913, is now due.

The demurrer was general and special. The argument made in this court by counsel is addressed exclusively to the questions presented by the general demurrer. Attached to the complaint as an exhibit is a statement of the items making up the gross sum advanced by E. A. Hannah & Co. It is impossible to ascertain from it definitely at whose instance the advancements were made or for what purpose.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 P. 517, 59 Mont. 298, 1921 Mont. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchard-v-hannah-mont-1921.