Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

66 N.H. 556

22 A 560

Pendexter v. Cole

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided June 5, 1891

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1891-06-05

Motion, by the plaintiffs, for leave to amend by making Cate, the defendant’s guardian, a party defendant, and that execution issue against him de bonis propriis. The action is debt on a judgment recovered in Maine by the plaintiffs against the defendant Cole in 1871. After the judgment was obtained, Cole moved to this state, and in February, 1889, was decreed a spendthrift; and Cate was appointed his guardian, and filed the inventory required by Gen. Laws, o. 186, s. 6.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1908

1 state decisions

Relies on Davis v. Drew

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clark, J.

¶1 No action can be maintained against a guardian personally for a debt of his ward. The guardian’s duty is to take care of the person and estate of his ward, collect his dues, pay his debts if he has sufficient assets, and protect his rights and interests generally.- G. L., c. 184, s. 3. The remedy for a breach of his duty is by an action upon his bond. Whether the ward’s property *557 lias been judiciously and legally managed and invested by the guardian is a proper subject of investigation and inquiry upon the adjustment of the guardian’s accounts in the probate court, but it is not open to inquiry in a suit against the ward for the recovery of a debt. A creditor may compel a guardian to adjust his accounts, and if he has assets in his hands and refuses to pay a judgment recovered against his ward, it will be a breach of the condition of his bond, and the creditor’s remedy is by an action upon the guardianship bond. Davis v. Drew, 6 N. H. 399, 400; Conant v. Kendall, 21 Pick. 36.

¶2 Motion denied.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
/66/nh/556 · .json · Public domain