Case Name: Samuel Hooper v. John Hooper
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1873-01-17
Citations: 26 Mich. 435
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Hooper v. John Hooper.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 435–437

Head Matter:
Samuel Hooper v. John Hooper.
Patties in fiduciary relations.: Amicable settlements. There is no rule of law or justice which will prevent parties in fiduciary relations, from making amicable settlements of their accounts.
Insane pej'son: Guardian and ward: Settlement aftw recovery : Probate court. A guardian of a person formerly insane, may settle with his ward after he has recovered his reason, and they are not obliged to have their accounts passed through the probate court.
Probate pi'oceedings / Guardian .and ward : Balancing account; Settlement: Estoppel. Where, in order to close the probate proceedings, it was agreed the account rendered in that court might be formally balanced, and tbe parties settled on terms which they .announced were private, such balancing raises no estoppel against the establishment of the claim actually existing between them.
£Special finding. When the record does not show that any special finding was asked of the court and refused, error will not lie for the want of such finding.
Submitted on briefs January 15.
Decided January 17.
Error to Livingston Circuit.
A. McReynolds and O. Hawlcins, for plaintiff in error.
H. II. Harmon, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
-Campbell, J.
This action was brought by John Hooper, to recover the amount claimed to be due him for bis services and disbursements as guardian of Samuel Hooper, during the latter's insanity. It appears that during his guardianship, his accounts were settled up to January 13th, 1868, when a balance was adjudged due to him of one thousand three hundred dollars and eight cents. On November 22d, 1869, after the ward had recovered his reason, and while the final settlement of the accounts was pending before the probate court, including the former balance and some later charges, the parties went out of the room for the purpose of settling, and came to an agreement. After a time they returned, and plaintiff informed the judge of probate that they had settled on terms they proposed to beep private, and that he desired to be discharged, and authorized the judge to enter the account as balanced. This was done, and the discharge entered.
He claimed in the court below, to recover the amount unpaid and dire him, and the defense was rested upon the ground that he was concluded and estopped by his balanced' account in the probate court, from setting up any further claim. The grounds relied on are, that such accounts cannot be settled or adjusted, except in the probate court, and that its adjudications can only be avoided by appeal, or other steps directly aimed at getting relief against that judgment.
There has never, that we are aware of, been any legal obstacle to settlements of accounts between parties of lawful age and sound mind, without judicial intervention, nor any objection to arranging claims in litigation. Settlements of fiduciary matters are scrutinized more closely than others, but they are not void. And in cases where the parties are of such age that there is no great danger of undue influence, there is less need of extreme caution, than where settlements are made with those likely to be more easily impressed. Upon such a record as this, none of these questions arise, and the judgment must stand, unless the probate record can be held conclusive against any debt. This would be absurd, when it was only put in that shape in pursuance of an independent agreement, which waa directly designed to remove the case from the court, by the only means whereby the estate could be closed there, leaving the parties to arrange their dealings among themselves.
We find nothing in the record to show that any special finding was asked and refused, and the error assigned on that ground is not well founded.
There was no error in the judgment, and it must be affirmed, with costs.
The other Justices concurred.