The Detroit times., 1911-01-31

pointing guardians ad Item in such
matters and should continue to do SO
until stopped by some higher court.
Judge Hubert, however, suggested
that, il the widow and her daughters
were advised that the appointment
was made without power and the or
der therefore a nullity, they might
consent to let the guardian al litem
proceed with the checking over the
account, and IL the fees allowed him
were not satisfactory, they could APP
pea. therefrom and test the question
In that way.
Any one familiar with such matters
can. readily ,rsee that such a course
would impose large and unjust ex.
rense, and as under the law there is
no appeal from the appointment OF a
guardian ad litem, there was no rem
edy left but to apply to the supreme
court of the state for writ OF pro-
hibition, which was done on Jan. 3,
1911, by petition of Mrs. Hurley and
the three daughters Of lawful age.
with the hope that the supreme court
would, in q written opinion, dispose
I OF one question of law involved, name
ly, the jurisdiction of the probate
court to make the appointment. But
the supreme court had not passed on
the application, when the matter
again came up IN the probate court,
on Jan. IL, 1911, when Mrs. Hurley.
without any order SO requiring es
stated in the newspapers, voluntarily
appeared in the probate court, accom-
panied by four of her daughters and
4 I,n
ed to prove her account, the familiar
ity with and approval thereof by the
entire family, and thus show that
there was no necessity OF putting
them TO the expense of a guardian al
Item. The offer was made also of
showing that Mrs. Hurley had reared
her family in harmony, that she had
expended largely from her own means
In the maintenance and education OF
her children: that. every item OF hei
account had been the subject of fam.
| lily conference and approval: that the
three daughters OF age had aided
their mother I'm the care and manage
mont of their property, and prepare
/ ton OF her account. and had consent
ed to its allowance; that the two
minors had also equal knowledge with
their sisters and were competent wit
/ nesses TO prove the account. IL was
5ubInitted TO the court that such proof
should be sufficient for the allowance
! OF the account without any action of
Il guardian al Item. But the court
| refused TO hear any such proof. be-
cause the account had not been check
ed over by the guardian ad Item and
stated that IL was quite likely no
testimony would be required after the
| guardian ad litem had checked over
The account The writer then mott
| fed the court OF the application pend.
| ing before the supreme court. when
! the court of its own motion adjourned
the matter until Jan %, 1911, await.
Ing the action OF the supreme court,
which, on Jan. 20, declined TO issue
an order TO show cause why the writ
| OF prohibition should not issue. The
supreme court did not file any opinion
and in no way expressed any opinion
| The question therefore has not been
passed upon by the supreme court and
| is entirely open and undetermined and
may be raised in several ways when
| the determination of the guardian nd
| litem's fees is reached And notwith.
| standing the announcement in the
press that the probate Judge states
the fees will be "inflnitesimal" and
nominal" and that Mrs. Hurley has
given in, and thus far her accounts
have been found correct" by the
guardian adj Item, the fact Is tue
question will be tested finally. The
guardian ad Item has been permit.
ted 10 check over the account. after
being notified that his power and
iighi 10 do so is disputed. and the
allowance OF any fee viii be con.
tested.
This contest will bring up. In the
circuitous way OF appeal, the question
which might have been disposed CT
quickly and inexpensively by a hear
ing and decision by the supreme court
lsuch contest viii also bring before