Bates v. Dunham

• Decision Date: 22 April 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 309,58 Iowa 308
• Parties: BATES, GUARDIAN, v. DUNHAM
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

12 N.W. 309

58 Iowa 308

BATES, GUARDIAN, v. DUNHAM

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 22, 1882

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.

THIS action was commenced at law for the possession of a note executed by Noah Hutchins, and a mortgage executed to secure the same. Afterwards an amended petition in equity was filed asking that an account be taken of the amount received by the defendant on said note, that it be decreed that he holds the same in trust for the benefit of said minors, and that he be required to pay the money in his hands to the parties entitled thereto. The court found that there is due the plaintiff from the defendant five hundred and forty six dollars and eighty one cents. The defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.

AFFIRMED.

F. M Fort and Aylett R. Cotton, for appellant.

L. A Ellis, T. E. Blanchard and Keck & House, for appellee.

OPINION

DAY, J.

On the 6th day of December, 1878, one L. D. McCoy was the guardian of the minor heirs of C. T. Hutchins, deceased, and had in his hands, as such guardian, a note for $ 500, executed by Noah Hutchins, and secured by mortgage. On said 6th day of December, 1878, L. D. McCoy borrowed of the defendant Dunham $ 175, and executed his own note therefor, due in thirty days, with semi-annual interest, and attorneys fees if collected by suit. He represented that he wanted the money for the purpose of paying the necessary expenses of his wards, and assigned as collateral security for the loan the note of $ 500 of his wards in his hands. McCoy appropriated the money borrowed, to his own use, and absconded. He had no authority from the Circuit Court to effect the loan or pledge the note. On the 1st day of January, 1880, the defendant collected on said note the sum of $ 524.79. After the commencement of this suit the defendant tendered to the plaintiff, and deposited with the clerk of the court for the use of the plaintiff, $ 333. The defendant claims that he is entitled to apply the balance of the proceeds of said note to the satisfaction of the note of McCoy.

It is conceded that, at common law, a guardian may, without order of the court, sell or hypothecate the personal property of his wards. It is claimed, however, that a different rule prevails under our statute. The question involved is simply one of the construction of our statute. The decisions in other States under the common law, or under statutes differing in phraseology from ours, furnish but little aid in the determination of the question now before us. Our statute contains the following provisions: "Sec. 2250. Guardians of the property of minors must prosecute and defend for their wards. They must also, in other respects, manage their interests under the direction of the court. They may thus lease their lands or loan their money during their minority, and may do all other acts which the court may deem for the benefit of the wards."

We are of the opinion that section 2250 of the Code modifies the common law rule as to the power of a guardian over the property of his wards. The power which the guardians of property possess are conferred in section 2250. They must manage the interests of their wards under the direction of the court. They may...