Case ID: wright_1/html/0399-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WRIGHT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARPER v. SEELY.
    Guardian — administrator of the ward — accounts between them.
    ■Where a guardian of a ward obtains a judgment against a debtor of his ward, and before payment the ward dies and administration is taken out on her estate, upon notice from whom the debtor pays over to tbe administrator the amount of the judgment, he may come into chancery to enjoin tbe guardian from collecting the judgment, but he must make the administrators parties.
    In Chancery. The bill claims that Seely, as guardian of Melinda Miller, recovered a judgment against him for two hundred and eight *dollars and ninety-seven cents. Melinda died in 1830, and ad-[391 ministration on her estate was granted to Hubbard and another, who directed the complainant notto pay to Seely. In 1832, the complainant paid the administrators, and took their receipt. The prayer of the bill is for a perpetual injunction against tbe judgment.
    Seely, in his answer, sets up the judgment, and disclaims all knowledge of the discharge. He says Melinda was a lunatic, for whom he made advances, and claims to collect in order to indemnify himself.
    The only proof is the guardian’s account, by which it appears that on settlement with the court, there was a balance in Seely’s hands of two hundred and seventy-two dollars.
   WRIGHT, J.

The case made is one where tbe guardian and the administrators of the ward, to a certain extent, represent the same interest. It appears that the guardian, Seely, has a balance in his hands over and above the judgment; this goes to the administrators, as will also the proceeds of the judgment when collected. It is alleged that the judgment is already paid to the administrators, to whom it belonged; and if collected again, they will have to receive of the guardian, and pay it back again to the complainant. Why collect it again, if this is so ? Why make the administrators repay Harper, that he may pay the same money over to Seely, to he by him paid back again to the administrators ? This would be child’s play. If tbe case is made out, tbe complainant may bave relief. But to establish tbe facts, the administrators, who are mainly interested, should be made parties, and bave an opportunity to contest tbe fact of their having received the money.

Leave is given to the complainant to amend, so as to make tbe administrators parties. After amendment, tbe master may take an account of the sums in tbe hands of tbe guardian, and tbe amount, if any, paid by tbe complainant to tbe administrators.

(KipTlie above decretal order was made at Medina, by Judges Wright and Wood, to which county the case was taken under advisement.