Cassilly v. Cochran's Guardian

• Decision Date: 05 June 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 844
• Parties: CASSILLY v. COCHRAN'S GUARDIAN. SAME v. WALKER. COCHRAN'S GUARDIAN v. COCHRAN et al. WALKER'S GUARDIAN v. SAME.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

13 S.W. 844

CASSILLY v. COCHRAN'S GUARDIAN.

SAME v. WALKER.

COCHRAN'S GUARDIAN v. COCHRAN et al.

WALKER'S GUARDIAN v. SAME.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 5, 1890

Appeals from Louisville law and equity court.

"To be officially reported."

PRYOR J.

Mrs Cochran was the statutory guardian of her infant children with Green and Doll as the sureties on her bond, and remained so until the 19th of July, 1880. On that day, Green and Doll were released, and a new bond executed, with Cassilly and Erskin as sureties. There was no provision in this last bond to indemnify the sureties on the former bond; and, the money of the infants having been wasted by the guardian, the question arises as to which set of sureties is liable,--the sureties on the first or on the last bond. The controversy is between the sureties; the infants being content with the judgment below, making the sureties in the last bond liable. The question then is, did this loss or waste of the infants' money occur before July 19, 1880, the date when these last sureties signed the bond? It is contended by counsel for Cassilly and Erskin that the loss of the money occurred before they executed the bond, and that at the date of its execution the guardian had no money belonging to her children. Green and Doll, the sureties in the first bond, were indebted to Mrs. Cochran in the sum of $4,626, for which she held their note as guardian. On the 19th of April, 1880, they paid to her the amount of this note and interest, being $4,700. They had previously paid to Mrs. Cochran a considerable sum of money belonging to her, and both sums were deposited to her individual credit in the German Bank. She kept no account as guardian. On the day the new bond was executed, she had to her credit in this bank $2,870. In June preceding, the guardian, under the advice of friends, had invested $2,000 of the wards' money in bank-stock. The bank in which the stock was purchased, and the money deposited, was then and is now perfectly solvent. Having placed the money to her own credit, and purchased the stock in her own name, the loss, if the bank had proven insolvent, would have been her loss, and not that of the infants. There was, however, no loss by reason of the inability of the bank to meet its demands, but the money and stock remained subject to the order and disposition of the guardian, either for her own benefit or that of her wards. She could have...