Chubb v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 28 October 1885
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: CHUBB v. BRADLEY.

25 N.W. 186

58 Mich. 268

CHUBB v. BRADLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1885

Error to Muskegon.

Keating & Dickerman, for plaintiff.

Maher & Felker, for appellant.

CAMPBELL, J.

Plaintiff was in 1866 made guardian of three young children of Jonathan Bonner, deceased; Emma, the youngest, having been born April 25, 1865. Their only estate was a pension of a small amount, and certain land afterwards sold for $2,000. Their mother remarried after her husband's death, and died in 1867, when Emma was two years old, and her brother Charles was six. Upon the mother's death these two children had to be looked after, and were placed in defendant's charge, Emma in 1868, and her brother in 1870. The guardian and their uncle desired to have defendant and his wife, who were childless, adopt them. Defendant hesitated about it on account of his small means at that time, as not able to support them. It was then agreed, as the testimony shows, that defendant should have their property to help him support them. Accordingly the pension money was paid, and the land was also subsequently sold, and the proceeds, with the pension money, left in his hands. He brought up the children, and the testimony indicates that Emma was treated very generously, and furnished with such an education, and such clothing and ornaments, musical instrument, the use of horse and carriage, and other things as put her on an equality with other young ladies, and were in part at least, such as defendant could not well have afforded out of his own means.

In 1882, Emma, being about 17 years old, was married to Fred. N Edie, to whom defendant had some objection from his having been employed in a business he did not approve. Thereupon she attempted to have her husband appointed her guardian, and letters seem to have been issued to him; but apparently Chubb was not discharged. She cited Chubb to render his accounts which he did, and showed the money paid over to defendant. An order seems to have been made charging him with the amount so paid over; but as, in our opinion, it could have no bearing on this controversy, we need not regard it. Chubb then, as guardian, brought this suit (or it was brought in his name) to recover back the money, as still belonging to the estate and and paid over and kept without consideration, although there had been a formal discharge given for it. The court below held the pension money properly retained by defendant but gave judgment for the proceeds of the lands.

Some questions arose early in the trial as to how far testimony could be introduced to show that the guardianship had been changed; it being objected that no such defense was pleaded. The court below shut it out. If we rightly understand the record, no lawful change of guardians was actually made; but if it had been, we have no doubt it was proper to show it. The action was on behalf of the guardian, as representing the estate, for money had and received, and anything which showed an absence of indebtedness to plaintiff should be a good...