*1 cjourt i.\ tíík .ik sufrí-: Bürke Tcrkkr v. J. and wife M. HARRY BURKE TURNER. under mistake Guardian and. law. Payment Ward — of his and for his ward can- 1. A receives l>vvirtue óbice who liability by belonged showing tiiat the same not exonerate himself father, pari ii.teru.--las to the ward’s of his-life estate courtesy! paid by but was him to the 2. Tiie fund here to the to the life estate interest father, paid by the latter to the under mistake of law as to bis lie assert a claim to recover it back. 410,
(Humble Mebane, C., approved). cited and Ciyil Term, ACTION bond tried at Fall of Iredell before J. Superior Court, Seymour, fully case is N. 85' judg- ment of the court below was as fo the allowance affirmed, except of commissions to the defendant J. M. the two Turner, upon corrected, items therein and as to these the account was and submitted at the last term of this an court, when order was made aside the last the matter to the setting referring clerk of this court to state the account accordance then rendered' and in 246), pursuance he submitted his the considera- tion of which, and the taken and argued directions following judgments
Messrs. M. Battle & Mordecai and B. Z. Clement, Liuney, for plaintiffs. T). Messrs. M. Burches, Bobbins & & Arm- Long Armfield for defendants.
field, J. The this case has heretofore Mérrimos, been attended with considerable and some confusion. complication lucid statement very of the account and the thercoi v. Turnee. clerk make it court, term *2 at the of the delivered last term so much mauifcst-that opinion directed the sum theretofore as 246) a board as credit for and clothing allowed be of the former to added to plaintiff, daughter .feme therein was errone- the indebtedness of The defendant This was not an item of was sim- ous. charge. a for the of that sum entitled to have credit not payment ply in all re- he had made. The directions other which alleges were correct. spects it to so as to make conform clerk will correct report
this direction. Judgment accordingly. in obedience to in of report
Upon coming called to an of the court error and the attention being in this case in the former submitted account made as an order reference was follows: this court has stated account clerk of
MeerimoN, in the delivered at as directed and a further opinion and modified last taken, no to To exception appearing term. it,. approves parties, acceptable just entered at once for the sum should Ordinarily, but her counsel due bring to be ascertained so of $1,628.69, the court an item of the attention to the first of the same from interest on the defendants to due—was admitted insist was they taken in the court below, in the them against no took defendants exception; to which charge added to the sum insist to be now ap- further ought they be due the plaintiff. pearing contend that they contrary, earnestly and that the item due, admit the
did insist that it below embrace it. They in the court iof real e.-tato lie/me SUPREME COURT. V. Bübice Tubnee. has a life as tenant are in liable. nowise they unable are to determine from what
We satisfactorily, appears in the record and the submitted by explanations arguments or not the is entitled to recover are the item of We left doubt and question. per- which it comes, source from do not feel at plexity matter without further dispose enquiry. It is indeed that an item the account was strange large considered and earnest contests repeated thought not, out it was can be ex- exceptions: only growing ground excused that the account has plained of it one, attended with confusion. complicated taking *3 that The now contend it was admitted plaintiffs they thought The settled favor. defendants on the other hand this claim been insist that lias not insisted until the seems to been mutual time. There have mistake misunder- standing. state
In this of matter must be referred to J. B. Con- this term at of the court from enquire what nelly .to item of mentioned source the and referred to, carne; whether it was of the real estate fund especially, part the former had life estate as guardian same, or what if courtesy, by any, came hands of into the the defendants. It is so ordered. obedience the referee submitted his at this term, -when following ruling J. The referee that reports, item of MjeeriMON, that the seek to plaintiffs to which an was ordered at respect enquiry $984.43 was guardian father of had life estate as tenant by courtesy, interest first from the r. Turner. balance of the item is embraced the account stated and ap- and no further is about it. proved, question It that the former to the defend- thus appears guardian paid ant he had a life estate as tenant $984.43, which guardian by he court courtesy, might, refused to to his That held have successor. court below, pay that to take was law guardian required that fund secure or recover for his steps had a life former estate as tenant guardian that was with but it did not not, therefore, fund; chargeable that if Turner decide Benjamin or it, would not with fund, any part
the same. So that it is an or- open question and this is for our decision. liable, now presented of how far the defendant might held for his failure to that the fund liable, see in which Turner had a life estate as tenant Benjamin below held was not before us. courtesy secured, was not so and there was no liable, appeal and we are not at decision, review The fund to the life estate interest the father. If for cause he chose to waive any it, right pay any part daughter’s canwe see no reason not do so. her, why might to do fit. If he He had interest as he saw chose *4 had the to do so without give daughter ques- of the defendants. If he so tion on paid $984.43 a mistake of law as to his he could not under probably and if he and 'wasted the bal- it; have reclaimed became insolvent the same to his own use, ance appropriated tends to he would not the evidence show did, then, equity, reclaim the At all be allowed to sum so paid received the events, “defendant money guardian having it; and in trust for his he is to insist that he neither himself nor his sureties can now be heard is not. SUPREME COUNT.
Price Joi-irsor. The father does set claim to the money up paid, ho could not assert sucb claim in he wore to do so, the ftourls. He is own act to set such claim. up estopped said: Mebane, Chief-Justice Humble administrators, “The shows recognizing relators’ over to them, money right, in a he in their behalf as their after- bond, which on and collected land wards sued debtor’s by selling and with which the account. execution, He trust for his and is accounta- wards, thus receives which he estate, to dis- therefor, ble permitted with conclusive force authority directly pute.” now before must be it. us, decisive of upon in addition to the sum entitled, already The/me that sum thereto the sum approved, enlarged by adding with interest thereon from the first $984.43, Septem- Let entered 1866. ber, accordingly.
Judgmont accordingly. Adm’r, PRICE, CHARLES v. JAMES JOHNSON and others. when it Wills, estate, becomesabsolute. defeasible Where an estate is defeasible and no 1. time fixed in the will for it to become absolute, preference time of the adopted, devisor’s death will be devisee, that of the unless there words to forbid But, period 2. if there be an intermediate between the death of the devisor reference, contingency to which the can have then the inter- devisee period adopted. mediate must be provides Therefore, John, the will arriving age “ twenty-five years, possession can take with it as the estate and do pleases,” over, issue, but if he die without then to be limited and he age ; Held, attains the said and dies without issue that the intermediate period attaining twenty-five years. adopted age is his After event, absolute, contingency became John