Appeal from the Chancery Court of Carroll County.

Hon. E. W. Williamson, Chancellor.

In 1877, W. E. Barksdale died, leaving a widow, Fannie G. Barksdale, and two minor children, Mary G. and Bettie J. Barks-dale. He left a will, the first two articles of which were as follows :

1. “I give, bequeath, and devise to my dearly beloved wife and my two children, all my estate and property, of whatever kind, after the payment of my just debts, to be equally enjoyed by them, each having an equal interest therein.”

2. “ I nominate and appoint my wife, Fannie G. Barksdale, testamentary guardian of my children, and empower her to sell and dispose of any property, real or personal, which may belong to my said children, or in which they may be interested, without any order of the chancery court, provided only such sale or disposition shall be advised or approved by either of the following-named persons : Hickman H. Barksdale, Warren F. Barksdale, or James Z. George.”

The guardian filed regular annual accounts, and in May, 1885, filed her fourth account, and prayed that this and the accounts previously filed be allowed. There were charges against the wards for expenditures for board, clothing, washing, tuition, and medical attendance, made without any previous order of court. The Chancellor refused to allow all such items furnished after November, 1880, when the code enacted that year went into effect.

It was shown in evidence that the estate of W. R. Barksdale was worth about twelve thousand dollars, and that he knew at the time of making his will that the income from this estate was not sufficient to maintain his family in the style in which they had been accustomed to live in his lifetime, and that he knew that the widow had no means except what he left her.

The guardian, Fannie G. George (née Barksdale), appealed.

1. It will be noted that the two provisions of § 2111, Code of 1880, though contained in the same section, are perfectly independent, each having a separate and distinct purpose and end in view.

The first relates solely to the action of the court—as prescribing both a power and a duty to the court. The second relates solely to the action of the guardian—eo nomine and in that character. Each of these might have appropriately been in a separate section or embraced in one. The object of the first was to remove any doubt that might exist, or to possibly change an existing rule, as to the duty of maintaining wards who had a father or mother living.

Under the practice in this State, the charge of maintaining wards had been made chargeable on their separate estates, though they had a father or mother living. Under the English system, the practice on- this subject was various when there was a father, though uniform when there was a widowed mother only. See White & Tudor’s Leading Cases, vol. 2, part 2, p. 1472 et seq., 4th Am. from 4th London edition.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress