76 Ind. App. 198 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1921
The record discloses that appellant had been adjudged incompetent to manage his own estate, and that appellee had been appointed his guardian. After the guardianship had continued for some time he was adjudged to be entitled to a restoration of his estate, and to be discharged from guardianship. Appel
Appellee contends that by reason of certain defects in appellant’s brief, he has failed to present any question in this court for our determination. While appellant’s brief may not have been prepared with commendable care, in the first instance, it has been so amended by leave of court, as to substantially comply with the rules governing the preparation of briefs, and thus enable us to determine the questions hereinafter considered.
• The only other contention made by appellant on this appeal, which calls for our consideration, relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the final report in the particulars challenged by the exceptions filed thereto. In order that it may clearly appear what issues were tendered by said exceptions, we set the same out in full, omitting the introduction and prayer,
“1. It does not appear, from the said report, what were the items of the inventory, and said inventory is not on file.
2. It does not appear from the said report what disposition was made of the individual items of said invéntory.
3. The date of the payment on sale of the real estate is not given.
4. The date of the other receipts are not shown.
5. The guardian does not charge itself with any interest upon funds so received.
6. The credit claimed for the payment of the judgment ■ of Amanda Sohl is excessive, and the guardian was negligent in permitting said notes to go to judgment and in paying more than the principal and lawful interest on the same.
7. The guardian’s report, required by law, was not filed at the expiration of two years, and, therefore, the charge of the guardian for service is not properly allowable.
• 8. The credit claimed for the account of Craig. and Son, $98.84, is improper.
9. The credit claimed for attorney’s fees paid to Roberts and Roberts, one hundred dollars, is excessive, for the reason that the services of said attorneys are not set forth, and said attorneys were at the time employed to represent interests adverse to the said trust.
10. The guardian makes no showing as to the income or expenditures connected with the opera*204 tion of the ward’s business as a retail meat store during the period of said guardianship, nor was the conduct of said business by the guardian authorized or approved by the court in a proper order.
11. The undersigned excepts to the credit of $296.99 for rent alleged to have been paid, and says that the same is not a lawful charge against said estate.
12. Petitioner excepts to the credit of $569.33, paid to the Hamilton Chemical Company, for the reason that no such indebtedness existed which was a lawful charge against the said estate, and no showing is made as to the reason for making such payment.
13. Petitioner objects to the credit of $95-00 to H. F. Acides for auto supplies and repairs, for the reason that said charge is not a lawful charge against said trust and no showing is made as to the nature or occasion for said payment.
14. Your petitioner objects to the guardian’s report and to all disbursements by guardian of .the pension funds that came into the hands of the guardian, other than those for actual necessities of life; that said ward is entitled to all of his pension money, and same is not subject to the payment of general creditors.”
The facts stated in specifications Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, of said exceptions, if true would not of themselves justify a reversal of the judgment approving the appellee’s final report. Some of them are clearly not essential to a proper final report, others might have been the subject of a motion to make the report more specific, if timely made, but none would require a reversal of the * judgment of the court below, where there was any substantial evidence introduced on the trial, tending to show that the trust, had been properly administered, in respect to the matters thus questioned. An examination of the record discloses such evidence, and hence the court did not err in its rulings as to said specifications.