Court Opinion

ID: 9830697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:24:06.752412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:25.778209
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee has filed motion for rehearing, suggesting that, in our original opinion, we incorrectly stated that the “insufficiency of such (the guardian’s) bond was expressly called to the judge’s attention by the guardian’s, report of accounting, filed on March 23, 1921 * * * ” and that such appears from the “agreed stipulation of facts-.” We did not intend to ■convey the idea that there was an agreement to the effect that Judge Allen’s attention was directly called to the insufficiency of the bond on the date mentioned; but, that, in our opinion, the record reflects that it was called to his attention in the report of accounting approved by the county judge, ■ which showed that the guardian then had on hand the sum of $1,088.85, in cash, belonging to' the estate of the ward, and that he was then being paid $100 per month additional from-the United States government and expected it to be increased to $157.50 per month. Thus, obviously, the $1,000 bond posted by the guardian was insufficient to protect the interest of said ward. The county judge knew, or should have known, that the $1,000 bond was insufficient, and his failure to require additional security was negligence per se, and such failure, along with the other failures of official duties, as reflected in the record and pointed out in our original opinion, were the direct and proximate cause pf the ward’s loss.
The original opinion is corrected in the particulars suggested above; motion for rehearing is overruled.