Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 N.C. 392

Whedbee v. . Whedbee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1860

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1860-06-05

Cause removed from-the Court of Equity of Perqnimons county. The bill was brought against tlie executrix of James P. Whedbee, as the guardian of the plaintiff, for an account and-settlement. The defendant’s testator entered in as-plaintiff’s guardian in 1831, and continued in the ofiice-until, 1845, when,, the plaintiff having lately become of age, he surrendered the-estate to him.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1886

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Manly, J.

¶1 This is a bill filed by the complai|$£ni; against the executrix and executor of his former guardian, for'anífc-,; *394 count and settlement of the guardianship. It was filed nine years after the ward had arrived at full age, and eight years after he had had a settlement with his guardian, payment in full according to the account then rendered and a release.

¶2 We think it was too late to 'demand a readjustment of the guardian accounts.

¶3 A release, taken by a guardian from his ward, upon a settlement, soon after the ward’s arrival at age, is looked upon with some suspicion in a court of Equity, and would not be regarded as conclusive, provided the -ward make his appeal to the courts in proper time. The parties to such a settlement, bear relations to one another of control and dependance, respectively, which make it unfit that it should be conclusive. But it would be equally hard, on the other hand, after the guardian had tendered and made a prompt settlement, that there should be a right in Equity indefinite in time, to call him into court and re-open the accounts. We think that time must be limited, and as a bill for an account is similar to, and in many respects, a substitute for the old action of account, we limit the time to three years from the period when the trust was closed.

¶4 So much has been said recently in our reported cases upon the effect of time on closed and unclosed trusts respectively, that I deem it unnecessary to repeat it here, further than to say it may now be considered as a settled general rule with respect to closed trusts, that they are subject to the statutory and common law presumptions and to the statute of limitations, which the class of unclosed trusts is not; Falls v. Torrence, 4 Hawks 412; Bird v. Graham, 1 Ire. Eq. 196; Davis v. Cotten, 2 Jones’ Eq. 430; West v. Sloan, 3 Jones’ Eq. 102; Oldham v. Oldham, ante 89.

¶5 We are of opinion, therefore, that the equitable right remaining in complainant after the settlement in 1845, was' barred by the lapse of three years in analogy to the bar to the action of account.

¶6 Pee Oüeiam, Bill dismissed with costs.

/58/nc/392 · .json · Public domain