Crumpler v. Deens

• Decision Date: 17 July 1888
• Citation: 4 So. 826,85 Ala. 149
• Parties: CRUMPLER ET AL. v. DEENS ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

4 So. 826

85 Ala. 149

CRUMPLER ET AL. v. DEENS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 17, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Crenshaw county; S. K. MCSPADDEN, Judge.

Bill in equity to compel account taken and settlement by guardian.

W D. Roberts, for appellants.

John Gamble and Stallworth & Barnett, for appellees.

CLOPTON J.

The bill was filed by appellants to compel A. W. Deens to an account and settlement as guardian of the estate of the appellant Lorena Crumpler. The bill does not seek to reopen a settlement made by the guardian, on the special ground that injustice was done complainants by accident, surprise, fraud or by the act of the guardian without fault or neglect on their part; nor is it filed under the statute for the correction of errors of law or fact which intervened in the final settlement. It makes no allusion whatever to any settlement in the probate court. Its general equity rests on the original jurisdiction of chancery, concurrent with that of the court of probate, of the settlement of guardian accounts. Among other defenses, Deens sets up in bar of the bill that on December 30, 1884, he made a final settlement of his guardianship in the probate court, from which he derived his appointment. The complainant married in the fall of 1884 and on December 1, 1884, the guardian filed his accounts, for the hearing of which a day was set, notices were given, and the final settlement made, all the proceedings appearing to be regular and in accordance with the statutes. The marriage of Mrs. Crumpler terminated the relation of guardian and ward and the authority and duty of the guardian, who was required thereupon to make a final settlement of the guardianship. Code 1876, § 2772. The probate court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties interested in the settlement. A final decree was rendered in favor of the complainants for Mrs. Crumpler's portion of the assets in the hands of the guardian. The complainants could have compelled the guardian to account, on his final settlement, for the bonds now alleged to have been lost by his negligence. The decree of the court of probate rendered on the final settlement was conclusive on the parties, and a court of equity will not reopen the settlement, except on averments and proof of the special grounds of equitable interposition, which authorize interference with the judgments of other courts of record, or for the correction of error of law or fact. Waldrom v. Waldrom, 76 Ala. 285; Bowden v. Perdue, 59 Ala. 409; High v. Snedicor, 57 Ala. 403. A chancery court will not take...