Beakley v. Cunningham

• Decision Date: 20 December 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 68.)
• Citation: 181 S.W. 287
• Parties: BEAKLEY et al. v. CUNNINGHAM.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

181 S.W. 287

BEAKLEY et al. v. CUNNINGHAM.

(No. 68.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 20, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; Dene H. Coleman, Judge.

Proceedings by W. A. Cunningham, as curator of the William Dwyer heirs, against J. N. Beakley and others for the removal of Beakley as guardian, and the settlement of his accounts. Order removing Beakley as guardian and restating his account, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This appeal is in effect to test the validity of an order of removal of a guardian by the probate court and disallowance of his commission upon the final settlement and statement of his account. Proceedings were instituted in the probate court for the removal of the guardian and the settlement of his accounts, it being alleged that he had failed to file an inventory of the estate in the beginning; that his settlement, filed November, 1911, showed a lower amount than the correct balance due because of a certain error and overcharge in commissions claimed; that he had failed to pay the petitioner the amount allowed him by the court for the support of the wards; that he had filed no account or settlement for the year 1912, and had allowed the lands of his wards to be forfeited and sold for taxes in 1913. The guardian was cited at the next term of court to appear and show cause why he should not be removed, and, failing to appear upon that day, he was removed as guardian and directed to make a full settlement of his accounts and guardianship on the first day of the succeeding April term of court. He filed his final settlement in April, which was continued until July, 1914, when his account was restated, and he was found to be due his wards the sum of $1,124.66, and certain commissions claimed by him were disallowed. The order of removal of the guardian was made on the 19th day of January, 1914, and on the 3d day of August, 1914, he filed an affidavit for an appeal from both of said orders On the 20th day of January, 1915, the appeal was prayed and granted to the circuit court and a motion was made to dismiss the appeal from the order removing Beakley as guardian because it had not been taken within the time allowed by statute. This motion was sustained and the appeal dismissed on the 16th of March, and on the 19th the court, upon a hearing, held that the guardian should be allowed commissions only upon the amount of money paid out for the benefit of his wards, and affirmed the judgment of the probate court, and an appeal...