Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-01-20

Asrkn, $685.
t'.aa Singleton vs. Love.
The complainant guardian of her r1iao
daughter, Cathariue Sing letJn who Ia ,bs Yea
1904, at about the age ef twenty yelrs. iaIermar
9 ried with the defendant Loye; and died some 81
\ months after marriage. la short tina sf.er m
death Of bis wife. Lave brought cult against III
3 complainant and her surenes, on her rearli.,
, bond. TO recover what he claimed 10 BE- ma osro,
al estate OF his deceased wife-shayinR prFyiossl,
taken out letters Of administration on her estate
To epjon this suit, ADD TO obtain decree eonsrb,
ing her acts as gusrdisn, in the conversion al tbs
properly Of her ward, are the bects of the bin
II appears that the estate OF the ward eoosistsa
of about SIP 90 in money, a piece OF Land. aboni
thirty acres. and undivided Interest. az tenab,
in common With her bro hers ami sisters in Che
tract of land on which the family had resided. de
scended from her deceased iaiher, DIpiel Single
ton, snd on which she and her mother contin1ed
10 reside. In the year 1858, aud not very long be-
fore her marriage hs exf fessed an earnest desire
to become the sole owner of the tract Of land a.
which she and her mother lived, by purchasiog the
shares of her brothers aud sisters or ss mans of
| them rs che eoud raise The means Oh paving for
! And, being then of the age Of nineteen she urged
neI guardian to make sale of the thirty acre tract
Of land, which Of hul little yalus and 10 ii,gsst
the proceeds thereof. together with her money in
her guardians hands, in the Pul chass Of the home
| stead
~.
| guardian, sold the thirty tract enc Craheh
/ for $500 co. which a full price fa. IL: aad
| proceeded to pGrehase FIVE shares of the home
place, at $50 90 each, which is shoEn to have
been not much more than nalf the va ue Of said
shares. In this way, enc hundred dollars Of tbs
proceeds Of the thiryODe acre tract, aud one hun
dred and fifty dollars ofthe mOLey IN che GUARDIANS
hands, Wero srpend d for be benefit of the ward
For the remaining 500 on of The price Of the thil-
~ acre traei, the guardian Leld be note Ct the
purchaser; andthis with balance Of s1out So o.
constituted the entire personal estate Of the ward
remaining after said purchase
In all this transaction, the guardian seems 10
have acted in the utmost good iaith aud with no
other motive than 10 promote the best interests Of
her ward The TRANSACTION is shown by the proof
to have been highly advantageous 10 the EaId and
seems to have been fully approved BY her up 70 her
death. '-' 1907
1t appears also that the defendant who lived in
the neIghbOrkood, had full knoEledge Of all these
facts, before his marriage with said ward; aud
approved and aequiescei thereiu until after the
death Of his wife. Aud in confirmation thereof
he received from the guardian, after his marriage
the 500 90 note taken in part fer the purchase of
the small tract of land; anu brought sut 10 recover
the money due thereon, after his wife's aih, as
administrator OF her estate, aud OBJ aimed judg-
ment accordingly. Aud, Furthermore, in his an
swer, he expressly rSti6es the saie of the thirty
acre tract, and declares his willingness TO make
any such title to the purchaser for the same, as
AscertainiDg, afterwards that he could not hold
the land purchased for his vile; and claiming the
right TO dissent FROM and TO sbnul the contract for
the purchase Of the land, by the guardian, he in
stituted suit upon the guardians bond to recover
the sum Of two hundred and fifty dollars, the |
amount paid for said land. SEA-. ....srs-
o The Chancellor, by his decree fully approved |
and ratified all the acts of the guardian in the prem
ises; but held, nevertheless. that The defendant
was entitled to be reimbursed the amount of money
invested in the land, AID 90 decreed against the
complainant And ths case is brought here by
both parties. E. -. .
Il is true, as argued that, as a general rule a |
guardian has n power, without the direction Of a
eOu-t of ChaRcery, 10 convert the personal q
the infant into real to invest has Money in land
Neither has he guardian any poser whatever TO
convert the real estate into personal The court Of
Chancery itself has no inherent original iurisdic
tion 10 Inc real estate of infant, as we
have recently Determined J.; the power to d. so be-
ing derived entirely fron The Statu Ct 1871.
But as respects the iuves msnt Of an Infants
money in land, the juTi dIc'ien of changing the
nature Of the estate, has bten exercised by the
court IN cases where 1t made 10 appear that 1t
would be for ne manifest ben,h' OF he infant;
that in the language Of Lord Elton. ''With this
qualification that If he lives, be may take il re
al estate; but without prejudice to his right Oyerit
during infancy as person II properly. ~ y es ~
anu III some cases, Inc court LAS euppOEleu CJnN
version by the guardian, out Of court, in investing
the Infants money in land, where the eircums'aH-
were SUCH that the court itself would have di~
rected like investmeu But The infant, when he
arrives at full age, viii have his election to take
The land, or the money thus invested, with interest.
And if he dies under the age Of twenty-one, his
proper representative will have the night to treat
he real estate purchased with the ilfauts money,
Is personally. and distributable as such.
From these principles il clearly follows, that the
wife OF the defendant, had she lived II attain her
full age and remained sole might have treated the
acts Of her guardian in selling her real properly,
and laying out her money in other lands rs not
binding; or she might have affirmed them Bus il
10 clear, that had she elected to disahrm The Gur-
chase, she would have been required TO relin-
luish all title 10 the land purchased by The guar
Ian. Aud as she married during minority her
husband, who was sui jVis, might PerhsPs, upon
bis marriage with her concurrence, have dsafirmed
he acts OF the gua dian; or lnssmueh as she died
before arriving at full age the husband, upon his
appointment admin strator, might then have dis
'ented. But he did do so, at either period
During life of his wife, he seems TO have full
y aequieseed; aud TO have regarded il, as did all
other persons as a most beneficial arrangements for
his wife And after her death, he approved and
ratifet the of the guardian 80 fer IS respects
The sale of the thirty Of land by the unequiv
peal act ofIeeeFings suing for, aud sPproprIatiDg
10 his own use the note for 500, taken in part
In the eross-t ILL., ne still expresses hts approval Of
Last transaction, aud bis willingness make lille
10 the purchaser, as before stated. By lbs act, he
is cnocladed to the whole mailer Neither the
ward, nor the husband in her right, c1ud eject to
ratify the transaction in part and rePudiate it in
part. ..-..
It was essentially an entire transaction. One
alf Of the Price Of the thirty aeres discharged
By transfer 10 the guardian, for the benefit OF the
ward, of two shares Of the home place; and part
Of one ntrre agreement with the ward, the money
Of the latter, about the time was expended in
he pure hass Of eotber shores And being entire,
!. must be ratified or rejecfsd as whole. -s-.. i
In view Of oil the f1es We think the decree Of the
so far as il approves aud confirms the
acts of the guardian in purchase Of the ssveral
shares of the home place; WAS correct; and we Affirm
it thus far being fully satisfied that, in every yieg
/ was most pref able aud jadieious arrangement
for the benei. IKE ward. ll... .asaszs.f 81 "A
But, in 50 far as the decree holds the defendant
entitled 10 be reimbursed the amount invested in
the Purchase Of the land, Il is erroneous-beiRg
drepugusnt The effeetis to
deel IRE that the srdiaR proper ~ Invested $3.50 90
u the infants money IN The purchase Of The land;
which TO that extent sufficient discharge of
the liability Of the guardian; but, nUtV ithstGnding
she bad rghtfuiy once accounted for The IN oney in
thstlsay,ttO charge her wish the payment Of it .
second lime, iu favor Of the husband, who, by his
acts of continuation, is precluded from any relief
There is no principle upon VII CHI this part Of the /
decree can bessustafned5 -. i-l q 5s15-1 sid
The result is that the land purchased descends to I
fHrs *,