Case Name: Royston, by guardian, vs. Wilson
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1881-12-13
Citations: 53 Wis. 625
Docket Number: 
Parties: Royston, by guardian, vs. Wilson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 625–626

Head Matter:
Royston, by guardian, vs. Wilson.
November 25
December 13, 1881.
Plea to plaintiff’s competency to bring the suit.
The person by whom this action was brought claiming as guardian of Roys-ton under the proceeding adjudged invalid in the foregoing case, and the defendant herein having-pleaded in abatement that such person was not the legal guardian of said Royston, the court erred in finding against defendant on that plea. „
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Bane County.
Replevin, brought .by Jones as guardian of John Royston. Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
For the appellant there was a brief by Keyes <& Ghrynoweih,. and oral argument by Mr. CTvynoweth.
For the respondent there was a brief by Vilas <& Brycmt, and oral argument by Mr. Bryant.

Opinion:
Taylor, J.
This action was brought by the respondent, as guardian of John Royston, to recover the property of «said Royston in the hands of the appellant, Wilson. The appellant contested the right of the respondent to recover, on the ground- that he was not the guardian of the said Eoyston. The same record of the proceedings of the county court of Dane county, showing the appointment of Jones as guardian, was relied' upon by the respondent to show his light as guardian, which was under discussion in the opinion in the matter of the appeal of John Eoyston from the order of ,the county court of Dane county appointing a guardian of his person and estate, herewith filed. Having decided in that matter that the proceedings of the county court appointing Jones guardian were void for want of jurisdiction in the county court, it follows that the circuit court erred in finding against the appellant upon his plea in abatement. The evidence ' offered by the respondent failed to show that he was the duly appointed guardian of John Eoyston; and, having failed in that, he failed to show any right to maintain his action against the appellant to recover the property of said Eoyston.
By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to that court to enter judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.