The Washington times., 1934-04-30
No. 6076
Louis o. Hodges, jr., Committee
Appellant
v.
Lorain Anderson

v.
Lorain Anderson
Appeal from the Supreme Court
of the District Of Columbia
(Argued March 8, 1927. Decided
April 23, 1880
George C. Shinn, Of Washing
ton, D. c.. for appellant.
Frederick A. Fenning, Of Wash
ington, D. c., for appellee.
Before Martin, Chief Justice,
and Robb, Van Orsdel, Hitz and
Groner, Associate Justices.)
Martin, Chief Justice: An ap-
peal from an order confirming the
report of a committee Of an in
sane person, also accepting his
resignation, and releasing and dis
charging hi as such committee.
It appears that in 1925, the ap-
pellee, Lorain Anderson, was ap-
pointed and qualified by the Su-
preme Court of the District OF
Columbia as committee Of the per-
son and estate Of Cynthia G. An
derSon, a person then non COM
pos mentis. The appellee was then
the husband Of the ward.
In June, 1881, the appellee filed
a petition requesting the appoint
ment of a guardian ad Item for
the ward, and that the court ac-
cept appellee's resignation as COM
mittee of the person and estate
Of the ward. A guardian ad Item
was then appointed. and after
wards the appellant, Louis O.
Hodges, jr., was appointed as COM
mittee in the place Of the appel
lee. In November, 1892, the ap-
pellee filed his third and final
account as committee, and the ac-
count and, vouchers filed there
with were forthwith transmitted
to the auditor for examination
and report. The auditor after con-
sideration filed his report approx
ing appellee's account.
The appellant, as the second
committee, filed exceptions to the
report of the auditor. Upon a
hearing duly had the court over
ruled the exceptions and approved
the report Of the auditor as filed.
Appellant now prosecuteS an ap-
peal from that order.
Appellants chief complaint re-
lates to certain promissory notes
held by appellee as assets Of the
estate. Appellant charges that
appellee negligently failed to COL
lect the same at time when they
were collectible, and that by rea-
son of his delay the notes became
uncollectible and the amount
thereof lost to the estate.
1t is disclosed by the record that
at the time when the eSate of
the ward passel into the posses
sion Of the appellee as committee
it included five promiSsory notes
aggregating $4,000 in amount,
signed by Wardman and Bones
as makers, dated March II, 1925,
and due five years after date.
The notes had been purchased by
the ward while of sound mind
prior to the appointment Of the
committee and were owned by her
at the time Of the appointment.
The notes together with many
other notes in a large amount
were secured by first deed sof
trust upon the Carlton Hotel prop
erty in washington, D. C., and
were made payable at the office
Of SWartZeI, Rheem and HenSey
Company, a company Of brokers
by whom the notes were sold to
the public. The debtors were en-
titled by the terms Of the notes
to prepay them to Swartzell,
Rheem and Hensey Company at
any time before maturity by the
payment Of two months interest
in advance at the time Of pay
ment. The notes were wholly un-
paid at the time when they came
into the possession of the appellee
as committee, and remained un-
paid in his possession at the time
of his resignation.
The appellant in his exceptions
to the auditors report charged
that the notes had become total
loss to the estate due to the care
lesSness and mismanagement Of
the appellee as committee of the
ward, and claimed that the
amount thereof should be charged
to him in his account. The audi
tor, however, held that the evi-
dence failed to sustain appellants
charge Of negligence, and accord
ingly overruled the same. The
court sustained this ruling Of the
auditor, and this is assigned as
error by the appellant in this
court.
We cannot sustain the conten-
ton Of the appellant. It appears
that during the entire time in
question the appellee was an of
ficer Of the United States Navy
in active service and was assigned
to various foreign posts Of duty,
and consequently was absent
much Of the time from the Dis
trict of Columbia. He opened q
bank account as committee with
the National Savings and Trust
Company of Washington and left
the notes with that company fo1
collection in order that the pro-
ceeds when collected might be de-
posted in his account as commit
tee. The notes did not become
due until March IA, 1880. How
0vaIs in Oct0har 1909 wordv1ooV =,