The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-10-14
Decisions Of the Supreme Court.

Decisions Of the Supreme Court
The following important decisions were rem
dered by the Supreme Court Of Appeals Oh las
Thursday:
! AMMON's ADMIR- VS.. WOLF.--From tn
| Circuit Court Of Rockingham county, Suit o.
infants VS.. guardians personal representative
fer balance claimed to be due on guardian
| ship account. Defence, that the money wa
duly invested by the guardian in confederate
| bonds, under act of March 9Th, 1868, objected
| to, LIST, because it did not sufficiently appear
any investment was in fact made OF money due
by the guardian to his wards in confederate
bonds, and I'd, if in fact made it was not done
| in pursuance of the terms and provisions Of
said act. which could not, therefore, absolve
the guardian from liability.
| On the first point, representative stated IN
his answer that he was informed. &C.. thai
some time in 1868 his interstate dld.in pursuance
of the act, invest SO, 500 Of the amount in his
hands in seven $500 bonds, which he preserved
| to the time OF his death lin 1866 or ~ as the
| property of his wards, and were found by his
| representative, "Wolf's heirs $780," endorsed
on each in his handwriting; alleged that ne
J had rendered them to wards attorney and eX-
hibited them with his answer. The bonds
were dated Feb. 18th, 1853, and appeared to
have been obtained by the guardian March I'd,
1868, and before the date Of che act, were pay
able to him as individual, and not as guardian;
same in form rs 4 large amount OF others found
by the administrator among the papers, and
claimed as the property of the interstate. Court
held the endorsement may have been made, so
far as appears from the record, long after the
bonds were issued, and long after the
war, as guardian did not die until 1866
or y, and is not evidence that the wards moils
ey was invested in them. If these bonds were
investments, the presumption is they would
have been payable to the guardian as such, so
as to show on their face, they were given for
the wards money. This would have been
proper for him, whether, investing under the
&C: or a decree Of Il court of chancery, or ON his
own responsibility without any decree or Or
der. The act prescribing ''the bonds, when
practicable, shall be taken in the name Of such
iduciary, &C., In his fiduelary Character Fly
taking them in bis own name, he could have
claimed them as his own, if they had appreeia-
ted in value, instead Of becoming of ne value.
There was no evidence in the cause tending TO
show that the guardian had applied to the
Circuit Court for authority to invest, and that
such authority had been given. But the evil
denae was insufficient to prove that it had been
given or applied for, much less to prove that
such an investment, even if authorized, was
ever made.
Part of the records of the court were des-
troyed in June 1864, and the order, if any, may
have been too. But it is probable that its i'm
portance to the guardian would have induced
him to obtain copy of it and keep it with
the bonds; especially as they were payable in
diyidually, and did not show, on their face,
they were for wards money, therefore Court
held it did not appear any such Investment was
made.
I'd. Was it made in pursuance OF the act
March 9th, 1868, and does that act absolve the
guardian and his estate from liability and the
money? 10 authorize investments under this |
act, three conditions must CONCUR lst. The |
money must be in the hands Of she fidueary.-
I'd. IT mllss have been received in the due ex-
ercise Of his trust: Sd. For some cause he |
must be unable to pay it over to the parties |
entitled. Il they do not all exist the order is |
null and the tidueiary Is responsible. II either
Of the con 1itions existed in this case, the LIST
and I'd certainly did not. The money was not !
i'll his hands when the bonds We're taken, and |
if it had not been received in the due exercise
Of his trust. The wards estates consisted Of |
their SHARES in their fathers estate, who died
several years sefor ss the war: 4he estate had
been Converted into money before the war and |
their shares were due them, in muney and |
constituted ante-War debts which were perfect |
ly secure,
The guardian, before the war, received !
large part OF the money thus due his wards, |
and thereby became their debtor in the amount |
so received.
That, as we'll Us the residue remaining I'M |
paid at the commencement Of the war, were good, |
ante-War, specie dehts which he had no right
to collect in deprecated confederate currency,
or invest in confederate bonds, in March 1863
There was no necessity for collecting them for
the support of the wards, nat SO much as the |
accruing interest having been applied to that
purpose large part was actually due from |
the .uardian himself before the war, and all of
it might then have been well and safely lnves-
ted by him for his wards. Instead Of that, it |
does not appear that he said anything about
investing for them until March 1868, when it
is commended, but rot proved that he invested
been q breach Of trust and waste Of his wards
estate for him to have done so. As to the
bonds amounting to seven hundred dollars,
which appears to have been received by him OF
Miller ON the Gath Of April, 1862, in part pay
ment Of purchase money ON land sold to him
before the war, he ought not to have received
hat payment in such medium
The Court is opinion if the investment was
in fact made, it was not made in pursuance of
the act of March 1868, which does not, there
fore, absolve the guardian and his estate from
liability. Affirming the court below, Judge
Moncure delivering the opinion.
fETERs VS.. N EVILIE s TRUSTEE, &c. from
the Circuit Court Of Nelson county. Receiv-
er appointed before the war, not allowed to
collect in Confederate money, bonds for the
purchase money Of lard sold before the war.
This was bill filed i'll March, 1859, by a |
judgment creditor to enforce his Judgment
lien by sale Of the dehtor's land. On
the lst Of October, 1888, it appearing that a
sale must necessarily be made, the court not de-
Gliding any other question, and reservlng for
future decision the question Of distribution of
proceeds Of sale, deoreed u sale for cash as to
expenses Of sale, residue on credit of one, two
and three years, In three equal annual install |
ments with interest, title retained, &c.
In August, 1860, the land was sold, and short !
ly after, sale reported to the court On the
10Th September, 1860, sale was confirmed, and
the plaintiff being the owner Of the dower
rights of the widows eleetlng to receive its COM
muted value thereier, and all parties consent
ing, there was reference to master to ascer- |
tain its value as Of the day of sale, and ON sug-
gestisn to court that purchaser desired to pay |
off and retire his bonds, one or more, in ad- |
vance of maturity, it was adjudged, &C., that
Peters, complainant therein, appointed receiver