Probate Appeal. In December, 1884, the defendant was guardian of John H. Gregg, an insane person. At that time Gregg’s sister and others made a petition to the probate court for his removal on the ground of mismanagement, incompetency, and hostile relations existing between him and his ward. Upon that petition there was a hearing before the probate court, the defendant employing and paying counsel, and having present and paying about twenty witnesses.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1888-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2016
5 state decisions
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.
¶1
The recovery of the reasonable expenses of a guardian, incurred in resisting an application by the ward for his removal, does not depend upon the result, and may be had, though the question raised was doubtful. The substantial inquiries in
*570
such a case are, whether the guardian proceeded in good faith, and exercised a sound discretion.
Palmer
v. Palmer, 38 N. H. 418, 420;
Mathes
v. Bennett, 21 N. H. 204;
Smith
v. Bean, 8 N. H. 15, 18.
¶2
Such expenditures as are not made in good faith and in the exercise of a sound discretion are not “ reasonable,” within the meaning of that word as used in section seven, chapter one hundred and eighty-four of the General Laws. In the case as amended it appears that the defendant, in good faith, under the advice of counsel, and on request of the overseers of the poor, upon whose petition he was appointed, defended against the charges made against him, and he should be allowed the sums found in the case, amounting to $237.69.
