Davidson's Adm'x v. Davidson
Decision Date | 03 June 1938 |
Citation | 274 Ky. 28,117 S.W.2d 1044 |
Parties | DAVIDSON'S ADM'X et al. v. DAVIDSON et al. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County.
Suit by Mary Katherine Davidson and others against G. P Davidson's administratrix and others to recover on a fiduciary bond wherein defendants filed a counterclaim. From a judgment, defendants appeal and plaintiffs cross-appeal.
Affirmed.
Richardson & Redford, of Glasgow, and Rodes & Willock, of Bowling Green for appellants.
John L Stout, of Bowling Green, and Guy H. Herdman, of Frankfort, for appellees.
At about Christmas of the year 1918, B. G. Davidson died intestate at his home in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where he was then living and stationed as the local representative and manager in charge of the branch office of Davidson Brothers, a wholesale grocery business, having its main office and place of business at Glasgow, Kentucky.
Davidson Brothers was a corporation and was operated by the four Davidson brothers, W. J., H. E., G. P. and the deceased, B. G. Davidson, who held and owned in equal shares practically all of the $500,000 capital stock of the corporation.
It appears that this large business began as a partnership and was, both before and after its incorporation in 1908, closely held by these brothers as a family built, owned and controlled business, which they continued to run after its incorporation as their partnership.
At the time of B. G. Davidson's death in 1918, he left surviving him his widow, Kate Depp Davidson, and their two infant children, a daughter, Mary Katherine, nine years of age, and a son, B. G. Davidson, Jr., four years of age.
Thereupon G. P. Davidson, one of the deceased's three brothers surviving him and co-owners with him of Davidson Brothers, was duly appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of this deceased brother. Further, on February 12, 1919, he was also, by order of the Warren circuit court, appointed guardian for the above named infant children of his deceased brother, which trust he accepted and duly qualified as guardian for them by executing as principal, with his brothers, H. E., and W. J., Davidson, as sureties, a covenant or fiduciary bond to the plaintiff, Commonwealth of Kentucky, conditioned that he would faithfully discharge his assumed trust or guardianship in all respects as required by law.
On September 20, 1934, some fifteen years after Mr. Davidson's appointment and assumption of the duties of this guardianship and following his removal as guardian for these infants, upon complaint made of his failure to make proper settlement of his guardian's account with them covering this period, two separate actions were filed in the name of the Commonwealth in the Warren circuit court, for the use and benefit of each of these above named wards, against the defendants, G. P. Davidson and the sureties upon his bond, alleging Davidson's failure to make a proper accounting to his wards of his guardianship accounts had with them and seeking recovery against them of large amounts alleged owing them by reason of Davidson's failure to properly discharge his guardianship duties.
Many pleadings were filed and voluminous proof heard, when, upon consolidation of these two actions and their submission to the learned chancellor, Judge Porter Sims, for judgment, he adjudged, in harmony with his written memorandum opinion, that the plaintiffs were entitled to a recovery in part of the amount sued for.
Complaining of this judgment, awarding recovery against them, defendants have appealed, contending that no amount was due and owing by them upon a proper accounting, but, on the other hand, that they were entitled to a recovery against the wards upon their counterclaim filed in the actions. The appellees have also prosecuted a cross-appeal, contending that the court erred in not granting them the full extent of the relief sued for.
These questions we find have been clearly, fairly and thoroughly considered and adjudged by the learned trial court in its able opinion and as it is in complete accord with our views, we have concluded to adopt it as our own. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee v. Coffield, 97
...Whitehurst v. Singletary, 77 Ga.App. 811, 50 S.E.2d 80; Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga.App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120; Davidson's Adm'x. v. Davidson, 274 Ky. 28, 117 S.W.2d 1044; In re Nolan's Guardianship, 216 Iowa 903, 249 N.W. 648; Workman v. Workman, 174 S.C. 490, 178 S.E. 121; In re Siems' Esta......
-
Clark v. Thompson
... ... Selph, 118 S.W. 286; ... Center v. Rose, 252 Ky. 463, 67 S.W.2d 698; ... Davidson's Adm'x v. Davidson, 274 Ky. 28, ... 117 S.W.2d 1044; ... [219 S.W.2d 27] Hammons v ... ...
- Davidson's Adm'X v. Davidson