Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Va. 43

Cunningham v. Cunningham

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided July 15, 1847

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1847-07-15

<p>1. Infant children live with their mother on her dower estate, and are supported by her, for which no charge is made by her. But during this time the nett proceeds of her estate are not equal to her expenses; and the guardian of the children pays these expenses to a largo amount, which she has not repaid him. Upon a bill by one of these children, after coming of age, against his said guardian. Held : That as it is impossible to ascertain how much of the advances of the guardian were applied to the support of the ward, a proper and reasonable allowance should be made for the support of the ward, annually, and credited to the guardian.</p> <p>2. Two months allowed guardian for collecting and investing the annual proceeds of the ward’s estate.</p> <p>3. In stating the guardian’s account, it should be closed at the period when the guardianship terminated; and from that time the account should be adjusted on the ordinary principle, as between debtor and creditor.</p> <p>4. It is error to aggregate the principal and interest due on the guardian’s account, and give a decree for the whole sum, with interest thereon.</p>

Decided 1847-07-15

Allen, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2The Court is of opinion, that as it appears the ward was supported by his mother, who has preferred no charge against him for his education and support, and as it furthermore appears the guardian advanced large sums to the mother by the payment of accounts to merchants and others incurred in the maiutainance and support of herself and family, including the said ward, it is but just and reasonable that some allowance should be made to the guardian for a portion of such expenditures in his account with the ward; and as from the manner said accounts were kept and advances made, it would be impracticable to ascertain the precise amount of the said expenditures which should be charged to the ward, a *46proper and reasonable allowance should have been made for the support of the ward annually, and credited to the guardian.

¶3The Court is further of opinion, that although there was no error in holding that after the termination of the guardianship, the account should have been adjusted and stated upon the ordinary principles as between debtor and creditor; yet the Court in the final decree has departed from these principles by compounding the interest from .the time that the guardianship closed, and rendering a decree for the aggregate sum, embracing interest as well as the balance of principal due at the close of the guardianship, with interest on such aggregate sum of principal and interest from the 1st November 1842 until paid.

¶4The Court is therefore of opinion that said decree in the particulars aforesaid, is erroneous; therefore for these errors it is reversed with costs, and affirmed in all other respects, and remanded, to be proceeded in according to the principles aforesaid in order to a final decree.

/4/va/43 · .json · Public domain