25 Wis. 646 | Wis. | 1870
The circuit court, having found that the guardian had not been guilty of any fraud in the management of the estate of his ward, dismissed the complaint, upon the ground that that court had no jurisdiction of the cause. The action was brought in the circuit court against Samuel N. Pox (since deceased), the guardian of Willis, for a general accounting, and for damages for waste committed or suffered by the guardian of the ward’s property. The complaint charged that the guardian had been unfaithful in the performance of his trust, and had fraudulently used and appropriated the ward’s property to his own private uses and purposes. The court, having found that the allegations of fraud were not sustained by the evidence, dismissed the complaint, doubtless for the reason that the guardian might be compelled to account before the probate court, which had full jurisdiction in the matter. The probate court undoubtedly had power, under our statutes, to cite the guardian to render an account of the property and estate of the ward in his hands. Chap. 112, R. S. But its powers in that respect are not exclusive. Courts of equity still have jurisdiction over guardians, and may control them and compel them to account (2 Kent, *227 ; Willard’s Eq. Jur. 621); but they should not exercise this jurisdiction except in extraordinary cases, or when some special reasons are shown to exist why the matter should be withdrawn from the probate court. Batchelder v. Batchelder, 20 Wis. 452; Freeland v. Dazey, 25 Ill. 294. Where no such reasons exist, and it appears that the probate court can afford complete relief, there is no necessity for the circuit courts entertaining jurisdiction in such matters in the first instance.
The evidence to our minds is entirely clear, that the guardian has not cultivated the farm as a prudent farmer would do his own land, and in a good, husbandlike manner. ' There is too much reason for saying that he cultivated it solely with a view to his own profit; suffering the house to go to decay; removing the products from the farm to his own land, and using them there; returning but little to his ward’s farm; permitting noxious weeds and thistles to grow upon it, which seasonable care and diligence might have been prevented ; and generally managing the farm as no prudent farmer would do his own land ; by which means he has greatly impoverished.
The guardian should likewise be required to account for and pay a fair rental for the farm, upon the principles stated by the referee in his report, “No. 2.” We see no valid objection to allowing the guardian the various items mentioned in folios 137, 138 of the printed case, in the matter of Parsons; and for repairs, breaking, digging stone, etc. They seem to be proper charges against the estate of the wards.
It appears from the evidence that the guardian has from time to time rendered accounts to the probate court of his guardianship, charging himself with certain amounts as rent of the farm, and crediting himself with various items paid out. These accounts were allowed by the probate court. There is nothing in the action of the probate court upon these accounts which is final and conclusive upon the matters embraced within them. The allowance of the accounts, although a judicial act, was not in the nature of a final adjudication between the parties. The accounts were rendered by the guardian, and acted upon by the probate court, during the minority of the wards, and ex parte. And the most that can be claimed from the action of the probate court upon them is, that the accounts, as allowed, are presumed to be correct until the contrary appears. But they are only
■ By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the above opinion.