Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ohio St. (N.S.) 249

Row v. Row

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 1895

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1895-06-18

The petition in the common pleas averred that on May 19, 1891, Philip Allen, who is made a defendant, was duly appointed and qualified as guardian of said Ellen Row, that on the 18th day of January, 1890, said Jerome Row and Lucy Row his wife, obtained from said Ellen Row, aged 80 years, a large part of her property without consideration and in fraud of her rights; that on other days named, other property was fraudulently obtained; that she is an imbecile and was so at the…

Decided 1895-06-18

By the Coürt:

¶1The action should have been commenced and prosecuted by the guardian of Ellen Row. Revised Statutes, section 4998. In case of the refusal of the guardian to bring the action, he should be removed and another guardian appointed. Upon motion and showing that a guardian is neglecting to bring an action to recover the property of his ward, the probate court should remove such guardian and appoint another who would bring the proper action. It cannot be tolerated that the rights and property of an imbecile should be controlled by a next friend, in opposition to the wishes of the guardian.

¶2The guardian is responsible to the court for his conduct, but the next friend is responsible to nobody. The judgment of the court of common pleas was right, and the circuit court erred in reversing- it.

¶3The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and. that of the common pleas affirmed.

/53/ohiost(ns)/249 · .json · Public domain