130 Mass. 458 | Mass. | 1881
The purpose for which spendthrifts are put under guardianship is indicated by the provision of the statute authorizing the complaint to the Probate Court, which is the first step in the proceedings, to be made by the mayor and aldermen or the selectmen of the city or town of which such spendthrift is an inhabitant or resident, or upon which he is or may become chargeable. The purpose is to take away from him the power to expend and dispose of his estate, to the end that neither he uor his family shall become a public charge. The fact being established that he has the characteristics which constitute a spendthrift, he is, in the interest of the public welfare, put in person and property into the same position with those who are incompetent, by reason of mental weakness, to manage their own
This being so, it follows that the act of the payee of the note sued on, in indorsing it to the plaintiff while under guardianship, was void, and failed to convey the title to the note. The principle is the same with that involved in the case of Manson v. Felton, 13 Pick. 206, where it was held that a spendthrift under guardianship is not competent, by an acknowledgment of
We are of opinion, therefore, that the judge of the Superior Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, as the plaintiff took the note from the spendthrift after the appointment of a guardian over him, he could not maintain his action.
Exceptions sustained.