Case ID: ala_48/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PETERS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TROY, Adm'r, vs. ELLERBE, Adm'r.
    [action by gtjabdiaN appointed dobing- tee wae, &c.]
    1. Case adhered to and reaffirmed. — The case of Bibb & Mtlkner v. Avery, Adm’r, (45 Ala. 691,) adhered to and reaffirmed.
    2. Quardian appointed during war can not maintain suit in present State courts. A guardian appointed by the probate court of the rebel government having military control of this State in 1863, can not maintain an action as such guardian in the courts of this State, without a renewal of his appointment by the court of probate of the rightful State government.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dallas.
    Tried before Hon. M'. J. Saeeold.
    The court below, in this ease, ruled that the plaintiff, who sued as guardian, Ac., could not maintain an action as such by virtue of letters of guardianship issued by a probate court of the State during the late war, unless the letters had been renewed by a court of the present State government ; and this ruling is now assigned for error.
    Pettus & Dawson, and Watts & Troy, for appellant.
    Brooks, Haralson & Boy, contra.
    
   PETERS, J.

There is nothing which separates this case in principle from the case of Bibb & Falkner v. Avery, Adm'r, decided at the June term of this court, (45 Ala. 691.) Upon the authority of that case, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. A guardian appointed by a rebel court of probate, sitting under authority of the insurrectionary organization then having military control of this State, in 1863, can not maintain an action as such guardian in the lawful courts of this State, without a renewal of his appointment under the rightful State government, since the failure of the rebellion.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.