1. Avpointmekt of Guardian — Bond—Washington Statute.

The statutes oí Washington provide (2 Hill’s Code, §§ 906,1141, 1142) that a person appointed guardian of a minor must, before receiving letters of guardianship, execute a bond, with sureties. H., by his will, appointed one F. guardian of his minor children. The will made no provision for dispensing with the guardian’s bond, but the probate court, by error or inadvertence, entered a decree reciting that F. was appointed, by the will, guardian of the minors, without bond, and approving such appointment. No bond was given by F. Held, that such decree of the probate court was void, and F. did not become guardian of the minors.

2. Judgment — Collateral Attack.

A suit was brought for partition of land in which the minors had an interest, to which suit F. was made a party as guardian, and in which he alone represented tlie interests of the minors. A decree of sale was made, and the land sold, and the sale confirmed by the court. The minors subsequently brought a suit to set aside the sale. Meld, that the decree m the partition suit was void, n«l both it and the decree of the probate court were open to collateral attack.

3. Community Property — Washington Statute.

II., in 1870, began living with a woman not his wife. In 1873, lie located a land warrant, received for services as a soldier in the Mexican war, on land for which he received a patent on January 2, J874. In 1876, H. was married to the woman with whom he had been living. Held:, that such land was not community property under the statute of Washington (1 Hill’s Code, § 1397) providing that property owned by a husband or wife, before marriage, or acquired afterwards by gift, bequest, devise, or descent, shall be separate property, and property otherwise acquired shall be community property.

4. Marriage — Effect of Statute Legitimating Children.

Held, further, that the statute of Washington (.Code 1881, § 2388) providing that illegitimate children shall be made legitimate by tlie subsequent marriage of their parents did not have the effect of making the marriage of H. and his wife relate back to a period before tlie issue of the patent for the land, though, their eldest child was born before the issue of such patent.

5. Community Property — Land Warrant.

Held, further, that the land patented to H. under a warrant for military service rendered long before, the marriage, even if patented after the marriage, would not be after-acquired property within the statute, but was a gift, and so the separate property of H.

6. Wills — Construction.

The will of H. bequeathed $5 to his wife, and gave all his property, real and personal, after paying such legacy and his debts, to his children,, reciting that such property was a half interest in the community property owned by him and his wife. Held, that such recital did not estop his devisees from disputing that the land in question was community property, nor amount to a devise of a half interest to his wife.