Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Ind. 397

Stevenson v. Bruce

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1858

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1858-06-17

<p>A suit against a guardian upon a contract made by him touching his ward’s estate, is personal against the guardian, and not against him in his fiduciary capacity.</p> <p>Hence, he cannot, by resigning, cease to he a party to the suit and he made a Witness.</p> <p>A direction in the judgment in such a case that the levy be made of the effects of the ward, is error; hut it will be deemed to he amended in the Supreme Court.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-06-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1903

11 state decisions

50185818601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Thomas W. Stevenson, and John Green, guardian of Cosmo A. Stev.enson, a minor, leased to Charles Bruce a house and lot in Logansport, for five years, at 150 dollars a year. Bruce subleased the premises to another person, for four years and nine months, at 200 dollars a year.

¶2Stevenson and Green refused to give possession to Bruce, or the sublessee. Bruce sued them for damages, and recovered 250 dollars. The Court rendered the judgment as. against Green, to be levied of the effects of his ward, Cos-mo A. Stevenson. Pending the suit, Green resigned his *398guardianship, and was offered as a witness for his co-defendant, but he was rejected.

D. D. Pratt and S. C. Taber, for the appellants.

¶3A suit against a guardian upon a contract made by him touching his ward’s estate, is personal against the guardian, and not against him in his fiduciary capacity. Hence, he could not, in this case, by resigning, cease to be a party to the suit. His rejection as a witness was, consequently, correct. It follows, also, that the direction in the judgment, to levy it of the ward’s effects, is error. Clark v. Casler, 1 Ind. R. 243.

¶4As to the damages, we cannot say, under the evidence, that they are excessive — perhaps they might have been a few dollars less, but we are not at liberty to interfere, for this reason, with the verdict.

¶5The error in the form of rendering the judgment may be considered as amended in this Court.

¶6The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent, damages and costs.

/10/ind/397 · .json · Public domain