26 Miss. 393 | Miss. | 1853
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a proceeding by the ward against the guardian, in the probate court of Lawrence county, to compel the latter to make a final settlement of his guardian account.
There is nothing in the record showing that the guardian, as required by the statute, made annual settlements of his accounts in the probate court, showing the annual income of the ward’s estate, and the disbursements in educating and maintaining the ward.
There is, it is true, something purporting to be a showing of the hire of a slave for part of the time. This, however, is not such an account as is required by the law.
But we will proceed to notice the main objection urged by
Upon this branch of the case, then, we are clearly of opinion, that the judgment of the court below ought to be reversed; and, inasmuch as the necessity for a reference of the account to commissioners has grown entirely out of the guardian’s failure to settle his accounts annually, as it was his duty to have done, we are of opinion that the entire costs of this refer
We may remark, upon the whole case, that the record is not very intelligible ; that, if it contain the vouchers, about which the controversy arose in the court below, they have been very ingeniously concealed in some part of the record, which has not come under our notice.
Decree reversed and cause remanded, with directions, if the guardian fail to sustain his charge, exceeding the income of the property of the ward, by a previous order of the court, that such charge be disallowed.
The two items, one for money furnished the ward, and the other for a gold watch, we say nothing about, as they will undergo investigation in the court below.