Case ID: ill-app_206/html/0556-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Della Robinson, Guardian, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. D. Smith et al., Defendants in Error.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Guardian and ward, § 80
      
      —when guardian not liable for compound Interest. A bill by the guardian of a minor child against its father, the former guardian, for an accounting, alleging that if the interest on the fund had been collected annually from the borrower and reloaned, instead of being allowed to accumulate, a sum amounting to about fifteen per cent, of that claimed by the former guardian to be due would have been realized, is properly dismissed as without equity where the father, as guardian, paid all the expenses of the estate and of his child from his own funds, which payments amount to very much more than he is sought to be charged with, although he was a poor man, and made no claim for guardian’s compensation.
    
      Error to the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon, John H. Marshall, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed July 14, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill in equity by Della Robinson, guardian of Gather Smith, complainant, against W. D. Smith, her former guardian, his surety, Frank L. Osborne, and F. J..Trimble, heir of a deceased" surety, defendants, for an accounting, claiming that, if interest had been collected annually by the guardian and reloaned, the ward would, from the compound interest, have had $180 more at the time the guardian was discharged. From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, complainant brings error.
    Albert C. and Ben F. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.
    Charles C. Lee and John T. Kincaid, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.