Case Name: Pierce, Appellant, vs. Wright, Respondent
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1920-02-10
Citations: 170 Wis. 606
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pierce, Appellant, vs. Wright, Respondent.
Judges: Eschweiler, J., dissents.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 606–613

Head Matter:
Pierce, Appellant, vs. Wright, Respondent.
January 14
February 10, 1920.
Compromise and settlement: Guardian and ward: Payment of compensation to guardian: Release by ward after majority: Action: Recovery on claim not the basis of the action.
1. Where a minor voluntarily paid to his general guardian $5,000 as compensation for services in prosecuting a claim against the estate of his mother, and after becoming of age made a demand for the return of the sum paid and later accepted $1,500 in full settlement of his demand, such settlement was binding on him, there being no evidence of fraud or overreaching on the part of the guardian.
2. In a ward's action, brought after becoming of age, against a guardian for the return of money he had voluntarily paid, while a minor, as compensation for the guardian’s services, recovery cannot be had otf an agreement between the ward and the defendant as trustee for the allowance to the ward of a certain sum in settlement of another transaction in relation to a separate and distinct trust.
Eschweiler, J., dissents.
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Oscar M. Fritz, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
John Eli Pierce, father of the plaintiff, died April 20, 1902, leaving an estate of the value of $200,000 or more. In his will the defendant was appointed one of the executors and one of the trustees of the estate. He qualified as trustee and executor and performed his duties as executor until discharged, and performed the duties of a trustee until January, 1918. The estate of the father consisted of real estate situated in New Orleans'and real and personal property situated in the city of Milwaukee. The trust being invalid under the laws of Louisiana, the real property situated in New Orleans passed directly to the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of his father’s death. Subsequently, upon the advice of the defendant, the plaintiff had a corporation organized which took over the property in New Orleans. Plaintiff became the owner of all its capi tal stock except the necessary qualifying shares. During the minority of the plaintiff his income from the Louisiana property was collected by his mother, who died testate on January 1, 1914, not having accounted for the amounts collected by her. By her will the defendant was made its executor, but, having knowledge of the claim which the plaintiff had against his mother’s estate by reason of the collections and conversion of the income of the Louisiana property, the defendant resigned as executor of the estate of Mrs. Pierce, and was appointed guardian of the plaintiff, and as such brought suit against the estate of. Mrs. Pierce. The other material facts necessary to the determination of the questions raised here may best be stated in the language of the trial court:
The plaintiff “voluntarily paid to the defendant, Arthur T. Wright, the sum of $5,000 as compensation to said Arthur T. Wright for services rendered by said Arthur T. Wright as general guardian of the plaintiff in the prosecution of a claim against the estate of the plaintiff’s mother, Margaret D. Pierce, which said claim was allowed the 7th day of August, 1915, at the sum of $12,208.06.
“(2) That the plaintiff became of age on June 22, 1916; that on the 7th day of July, 1916, the plaintiff executed and delivered to the defendant a release under seal acknowledging receipt of all moneys .belonging to the plaintiff and held by the defendant as guardian of the plaintiff and full satisfaction of any and all claims and demands which the plaintiff had against the defendant as guardian. Such release was witnessed by one James J. Kerwin, who first acted as plaintiff’s counsel in or about the months of May or June, 1916; that upon the allowance of the. accounts of said defendant as the general guardian of the plaintiff the defendant made'no claim for and was not allowed any compensation for services of such general guardian.
“(3) That on or about the 28th day of August, 1916, the plaintiff, by his counsel, James J. Kerwin, wrote a letter to the defendant demanding the return by the. defendant to the plaintiff of said sum of $5,000 so paid by the plaintiff to the defendant; that thereafter, and for a period which continued from early in the month of September, 1916, to the 9th day of December, 1916, negotiations were had between the parties in which the defendant was represented by his attorney, Carl B. Rix, and the plaintiff was represented by his attorney, James J. Kerwin; that during the course of such negotiations various offers and counteroffers were made by the respective parties for the purpose of disposing of the plaintiff’s claim for the return of said sum of $5,000; that the counsel for the defendant, Carl B. Rix, entertained, in good faith, the belief that serious doubt existed as to the right of the plaintiff to recover the full sum of $5,000; and believed, in good faith, that a court might determine such controversy in favor of the defendant, Arthur T. Wright, as‘ to a substantial part of said sum of $5,000; that no fraud or misrepresentation was practiced on the part of the defendant or his counsel in the negotiations with the plaintiff and his counsel during said period; that on the 9th day of December, 1916, plaintiff’s said claim was compromised and settled for the sum of $1,500, which was paid by the defendant, and the plaintiff, against the advice of his counsel but without any procurement on the part of the defendant or the defendant’s counsel, executed and delivered to the defendant a release under seal, which said release was witnessed by the plaintiff’s said counsel; that at the time of the execution of said release the plaintiff understood the full purport and meaning thereof and was under no duress.”
There was judgment in favor of the defendant dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, from which the plaintiff appeals.
Adolph Kcmneberg of Milwaukee, f,or the appellant.
For the respondent there was a brief by Van Dyke, Shaw, Muskat & Van Dyke of Milwaukee, and oral argument by James D. Shaw.

Opinion:
Rosenberry, J.
Upon this appeal there are hut two questions for determination. First, Does the evidence sustain the findings of the trial court? and second, Do the findings sustain the judgment?
It is immaterial whether the defendant did or did not do many of the things alleged in the brief of counsel; if the set tlement made on the 9th day of December, 1916, was a full, fail*, and complete settlement, it must stand unless set aside for fraud or mistake. Whatever the circumstances were under which the plaintiff was induced to make payment of the $5,000, the confidential relationship existing at the time of the payment was at an end at the time of the settlement. There is no allegation of fraud or mistake in reference to the settlement. The plaintiff was twenty-one years of age, and there is no claim that he was not fully competent to transact business upon his own account; in addition to which he had the advice and counsel of an attorney of his own choice. He was not under the influence or subject to the domination of the defendant in any way or to any extent, so far as the settlement was concerned; in fact it appears that the whole transaction in regard to the settlement was carried on at arm's length through the attorneys for the respective parties, and the conclusion of the trial court that the cause of action set out in the complaint was compromised, settled, released, and discharged by the plaintiff upon sufficient consideration is the only conclusion which can be reached upon the facts as found by the trial court, and the findings are amply sustained by the evidence.
We refer to one other matter, for the reason that it is argued that it ought to be considered part of the settlement. According to the laws of Louisiana the plaintiff became of age and capable of contracting when he reached eighteen. He thereafter organized the Pierce Investment Company to take over the real estate situated in New Orleans. Subsequently the defendant advanced to the plaintiff considerable sums of money, and finally purchased the stock of the Pierce Investment Company from the plaintiff for the benefit of the 'trust fund in his hands, for $18,000. During the time that the negotiations for the settlement of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant were pending the plaintiff also set up the claim that this transfer was illegal, because, while he was of age in Loui siana, he was not of full age and capable of contracting in Wisconsin. In order to settle this matter and dispose of any defect in the defendant's title, it was suggested by his attorney that the purchase price be increased from $18,000 to $21,000, and that a new transfer be executed by the plaintiff, who was at the time more than twenty-one years of age. The arrangement was accordingly entered into. The^question of the defendant's liability or relation to the trust fund is not before us. If any cause of action exists by reason of theypayment of'the $3,000 increase in the purchase price of the stock, it is a matter which has to do with the defendant's duties as trustee, and the amount cannot be recovered by the plaintiff in -this action. As to the claim for the return of the $5,000 set up by the plaintiff's complaint in this action, the plaintiff either settled and compromised the claim or he did not. If he did, as the trial court held, the defendant is not liable to him therefor. If the defendant misappropriated funds belonging to the trust fund (and we express or intimate no opinion as to that), he cannot be held liable therefor in this action.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
The following opinion was filed March 8, 1920: