Case Name: Ex parte Charles Crutchfield
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1832-05
Citations: 3 Yer. 336
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex parte Charles Crutchfield.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 336–338

Head Matter:
Ex parte Charles Crutchfield.
The county court have the authority to displace a guardian when they deem it necessary to the interest of the ward.
The conversion of the real into the persona! estate by the guardian, is an act unauthorized by law, except through the aid of a court properly constituted, and is a sufficient cause for the removal of a guardian.
The appointment of an administrator to be guardian of the heirs; is improvident and not to be encouraged.
This was a motion made to the county court of Henry county, in behalf of the minor heirs of John Thomas dec’d. against the defendant (their guardian) for mismanaging the estate of said minor heirs, and for other causes.
The county court removed him, from which judgment he appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of the county court was affirmed; from this judgment an appeal in the nature of a writ of error was prosecuted to this court.
The bill of exceptions shows, that at the September sessions 1827, of the county court of Henry county, the said Crutchfield was appointed administrator of the es. tate of said John Thomas, deceased, and qualified as such. He was at a subsequent term appointed guardian for the minor heirs of said Thomas, and as such, filed a bill to have a grist mill (a moiety of which belonged to himself) sold; at the sale he became the purchaser, for $>520, which was the full value of the moiety. It was however proved that one half of the mill could have heen rented for fifty dollars per annum, and was so rented one or two years, &c.
John W. Cooke, for the motion.
Hu. W. Dunlap, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Whyte, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
The laws of this State have placed the condition and state of orphanage, under the power and protection of the county courts, both as to the custody of the person and the management of the property. In their discretion is reposed the trust of making a proper selection for guardian; and to insure the correct discharge of the important duties belonging to the office, the law hath also clothed the same courts with ample power; it has given them the superintendance and controul of the guardian and if necessary to displace him, and appoint another in his stead of 1762, ch. 5, sec. 9, 15, 16.) In the present case, me county court of Henry county has deemed it necessary in the exercise of the trust confided to them, to displace Mr. Crutchfield, the plaintiff in error, from the guardianship of the minor orphans of John Thomas deceased; and although acts not warranted by law were done by him, or permitted to be done, yet injustice to his motives, it ought to he stated, that from the facts set forth in the hill of exceptions, no malpractice, or fraud, or act injurious to the interests of his wards, appear to have been designed or committed intentionally by him.
It cannot, however, he considered by this court, that the county court has exercised its descretion improperly. That court has opportunities for possessing a more correct view of the whole case than this court, and we are hound to take the displacement of the guardian, as a correct proceeding, and necessary for the benefit of the orphans; the more especially in the present case, as it has also met the approbation of the circuit court.
The act of appointing the administrator to the office of guardian was an improvident act; and the conversion of the real into personal estate was wholly unauthorized by law under the circumstances appearing in this record, although sold for a fair and full value. These acts author ized a displacement of the guardian, the plaintiff in error.
Judgment affirmed.