Farrington v. Secor

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROTHROCK
• Citation: Farrington v. Secor, 91 Iowa 606, 60 N.W. 193 (Iowa 1894)
• Decision Date: 05 October 1894
• Parties: FARRINGTON v. SECOR ET AL.

91 Iowa 606

60 N.W. 193

FARRINGTON

v.SECOR ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Winnebago county; P. W. Burr, Judge.

This is a proceeding in probate involving the liability of the defendants as sureties upon a guardian's bond. There was a finding and judgment against the defendants, and they appeal. Affirmed.C. H. Kelley, for appellants.

Peters & Fisher and Sawyer, Abbott & Sawyer, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

On or about the 28th day of December, 1877, Jenette E. Westbury was appointed guardian of Edna H. Adams, a minor. She resided in Winnebago county when her appointment was made. At the time of said appointment, Jenette E. Westbury was the wife of William Westbury. Edna H. Adams was her daughter by a former marriage with Edward H. Adams. It appears that Adams was a soldier in the War of the Rebellion, and his said minor child drew a pension on account of the military service of her father. She had no other property, and the appointment of a guardian was for the purpose of receiving and caring for the pension money. After the appointment of the guardian, she made regular reports to the courts in Winnebago county up to the time of her death, which occurred in the year 1888. There is no valid objection to the form of the reports nor to the expenditures made for the benefit of the child. The only real controversy in the case arises upon the fact that in the year 1883 the said guardian removed from this state, with the child, and took up her residence in the state of Minnesota, where she remained until the time of her death. It is contended by the defendants, the bondsmen of said guardian, that they are not liable for any of the money received by said guardian after her removal to the state of Minnesota, because the courts in this state have no jurisdiction of the money which never was in this state, and had no jurisdiction of the person of the guardian after her removal from the state. It does not appear that the defendants at any time made any effort to be released from their obligation as sureties on the bond. They will be presumed to have known that the guardian made regular annual reports to the court in Winnebago county from the time of her removal from the state to the time of her death. These reports were received and approved, and the said guardianship was in all respects recognized by the court, the same as though the guardian continued to reside within this state. The guardian had no separate estate when she died, and her administrator accounted for a part of the amount due to the ward, and said...