224 Wis. 24 | Wis. | 1937
The respondent was guardian of an insane ward, and as such received $3,410.28 in cash belonging to his ward on October 2, 1929. The funds were evidenced by a certificate of deposit in the Peoples State Bank of Colfax. He immediately took a time certificate of deposit in that bank payable to iiimself as guardian for the amount. The certificate of deposit carried four per cent interest. He was told by the banker that he could draw out money at any time on the certificate of deposit. When he needed money for support of his ward or other expenses of administration he turned in the current certificate and took out a new one for the amount of the surrendered certificate with interest, less the amount of cash needed. He continued this practice until the bank closed at the time of the bank moratorium, March 3, 1933. His
The bank was stabilized, and the guardian received for his certificate of deposit $639.96 cash and a trust certificate for $1,572.56. The ward is now dead and his estate is now payable to his administrator. The guardian by his final account asks that the trust certificate be accepted in lieu of cash. The administrator refuses so to accept it and demands payment in cash of the amount of the trust certificate with interest from its date. The county court found that the guardian used due care and diligence in keeping the funds in the bank on certificates of deposit; held that the funds were not invested; that the funds were placed on deposit so as to be available as required for the care of the ward and expenses of administration; that the funds were properly so held; ánd approved the account as filed. From the judgment so determining, the administrator appeals.
Cases involving similar situations have recently been before this court. In Matter of Filardo, 221 Wis. 589, 267 N. W. 312, and Estate of George, 225 Wis. —, 270 N. W. 538, the situations respecting the certificates of deposit materially differed only in that the trustees were officers of the banks in which the funds were deposited, and knew of the
As the guardian himself treated his deposit as an investment, he should not complain if he be held to his word. We are of opinion also that a six months’ period is as long as considerable sums should ordinarily be held for temporary purposes by statutory trustees. This period is fixed as the limit in Re Hazelbaker’s Estate, 113 Pa. Super. 32, 171 Atl. 619, a well-considered case. As matter of common knowl
On March 30, 1930, the Dunn county asylum for the insane filed a claim including a charge for two hundred seventy-two weeks’ board and care of the ward at $4.80 per week. It would have been proper for the guardian to have Jield on checking account in the bank a sufficient sum to provide for payment of this amount when it should be determined by the court. A time certificate of deposit, due at a fixed future date, as were the certificates involved, however, would not render the required amount payable on demand, notwithstanding the oral statements of the bank officials that it would be so paid. Written instruments cannot be so modified by parol statements made prior to or at the time of their execution. Payment of a certificate of deposit could not be compelled until its due date, and partial payments in certificates of deposit are prohibited by statute, sec. 221.33 (2), Stats. 1935. The statements of the bank officials exonerate the guardian from imputation of intentional wrongdoing, but they do not excuse him from not investing the funds received in such securities as sec. 231.32, Stats. 1929, 1931, and 1933, required. It is true that the guardian was entirely free from intentional wrongdoing. He had no reason to doubt the soundness of the bank, and he cannot be charged with negligence in not discovering its insolvency. But this does not excuse him from diligence in properly investing the funds of his ward in statutory securities, or from holding such sums as were proper for temporary purposes in such form as not to be immediately available when required. The guardian’s placing of his ward’s funds in the bank on certificates of deposit must be considered as an investment; and he must be held to have breached his duty in not investing them in such
By the Court. — The judgment of the county court is reversed, with directions to enter a judgment in accordance with the opinion.