Bennett v. Mary A. Hanifin.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1877 |
| Citation | 1877 WL 9794,87 Ill. 31 |
| Parties | CHARLES R. BENNETT, Guardian,v.MARY A. HANIFIN. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jo Daviess county; the Hon. WILLIAM BROWN, Judge, presiding. This was a citation, by the county court of Jo Daviess county, to Charles R. Bennett, guardian of Mary A. Hanifin, to make his final report and settlement with his ward, the citation issuing February 7, 1876.
In obedience to the citation, the guardian made report that, on the coming of age of his ward, she called on him for a full settlement of his account as guardian; that such ward and himself went to the probate court, and had the account made up and adjusted, and there was found to be due to his ward from him, as her guardian, the sum of $128.88, that being the full amount due her; and thereupon he paid said sum to her and took her receipt in full, which was therewith attached to the report as a part thereof; that the same being made in the presence of the clerk of the court, he supposed the account was closed, and that he was discharged from all responsibility without further report--praying that his report might be approved, and that he might be discharged. Appended whereto was the following:
“ Galena, August 8, 1868.
Received of Charles R. Bennett, guardian for myself, $128.88, in full for money left by my father for me.
MARY A. HANIFIN.”
There appeared in evidence, from the records of the county court of Jo Daviess county, the following:
“ Wednesday morning, August 5, 1868.
Court met pursuant to adjournment. The following proceedings were had, to-wit:
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
¦In the matter of Mary Hanifin, an heir ¦)¦Guardian's Report. ¦
+----------------------------------------+-+--------------------¦
¦at law of John Hanifin, deceased. ¦)¦ ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Now, at this day, comes Charles R. Bennett, guardian of said Mary Hanifin, and makes report of his actions and doings in the premises; and it appears that said guardian was indebted to said ward, at the time of making his last report, (December 18, 1866,) in the sum of $723.88; and said guardian has paid since his last report, in taxes and cash, for said ward, up to April 1, 1876, the sum of $510; also, has paid out for said ward, in cash, from April 1, 1867, up to date, the sum of $85, making total paid out since last report the sum of $595, leaving a balance in the hands of said guardian, and due said ward, the sum of $128.88; and said Mary Hanifin, the aforesaid ward, being present in court, examines said report, and said guardian having been duly sworn that said report is true and correct, it is ordered by the court that said report be approved.”
In the guardian's report, filed December 18, 1866, he reports as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------+
¦“April 10, 1855, received of W. C. Bostwick,¦$61 75 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦December 29, 1856, sale of real estate, ¦600 00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦December 29, 1857, sale of real estate, ¦600 00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦ ¦$1261 75”¦
+------------------------------------------------------+
Then he reports a number of payments, and strikes a balance in his hands of $723.88. The guardian was appointed February 6, 1855. The testimony satisfactorily shows that the ward came of age--eighteen years old--in August, 1868, leaving it uncertain on what day of the month. In the petition for his appointment, the guardian stated that the ward would be five years old on the -- day of August, 1855.
With respect to the receipt, the appellee gave testimony that she bought a sewing machine at Dubuque, and came to Galena August 8, 1868, to get the money; that she met appellant on the street, and asked him for $95 to pay for it; that he went into a store, wrote the receipt, and she signed it without reading it, and he then handed her $128 and some cents, and said that was all the money coming to her; that she was surprised at the time, and told appellant she thought there was more, and that was all that was said about it. Mary J. Kelly, a cousin of appellee, testified that she was with appellee at the time, and corroborated her testimony in all respects.
Appellee further testified that she was not in Galena (the place of holding the county court) on the 5th day of August, 1868, and never came into court and examined the report. She was positive of this.
Mrs. Kelly testified that appellee came to Galena, from Dunleith, the same day she got the money, and stopped at their house; that she had not been in Galena for six or eight months before; that she always stopped at their house when in Galena; that she was with appellee all that day, and that she was not at the court house that day. Daniel Kelly also testified that appellee stopped at his house when in Galena, and he did not know of her being there for five or six months before the money was paid.
Appellee further testified that, after appellant paid her the money, she consulted a lawyer in Galena; that he told her appellant's securities were dead, and worth nothing, and it was useless to do anything, as he was involved.
There was no contradictory testimony upon the points testified to by these witnesses. Appellant appears not to have been present himself at the trial.
The present appeal was taken by Bennett from a judgment of the circuit court finding there to be due from him, as her late guardian, to Mary A. Hanifin, the sum of $804, such judgment having been rendered on appeal from the county court, where, on the hearing upon the report, there had been a finding in favor of Mary A. Hanifin for $525.50.
Mr. M. Y. JOHNSON, for the appellant.
Messrs. D. & T. J. SHEEAN, for the appellee.
The claim of appellant is, that he made a full and final settlement of his guardianship account with his ward, after she came of age, before the county court, which then found and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagle v. Robins
...State v. Wheeler, 127 Ind. 451; Massick v. Beebee, 17 Kan. 47; Sherry v. Sansberry, 3 Ind., 320; Blake v. Pegram, 101 Mass. 592; Bennett v. Hanifen, 87 Ill. 31; Coburn Loomis, 49 Me. 406; Durworth v. Kirby, 37 N. E., 729; Coffin v. Bramlet, 42 Miss. 194.) If the law were otherwise, the repo......
-
People ex rel. Sterling v. Huffman
...may correct such mistakes, as may also be done by any court to which an appeal may be taken. Bruce v. Doolittle, 81 Ill. 103;Bennett v. Hanifin, 87 Ill. 31. The report of the executor thus presented, upon which there has been no adjudication by the county court, cannot be held conclusive on......
-
Bliss v. Seaman
...7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 442, etc., and authorities cited in notes; Bond v. Lockwood, 33 Ill. 212;Long v. Thompson, 60 Ill. 27;Bennett v. Hanifin, 87 Ill. 31. As we have seen, Benjamin F. Bliss, the executor of the estate of Russell Bliss, died without having made a final settlement of tha......
-
In re Thomas' Estate
...in the hands of the conservator. 2 Woerner, Adm'n, § 504; 9 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 143; State v. Jones, 89 Mo. 470, 1 S.W. 355; Bennett v. Hanifin, 87 Ill. 31; Austin v. Lamar, 23 Miss. 189; Bond v. Lockwood, supra. court having jurisdiction is vested with a large discretion in the removal of......