Gorman v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 24 March 1885 |
| Citation | 1 N.E. 227,43 Ohio St. 86 |
| Parties | GORMAN v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Error to the district court of Franklin county.
The original action was brought in the court of common pleas of Franklin county, by Thomas E. Taylor, guardian of Mary Elizabeth Hoffman, against Synon Fitzgerald and Rose Gorman, on the bond of Fitzgerald, a former guardian of said Mary Elizabeth Hoffman, who had been removed as such guardian by the order and judgment of the probate court of Franklin county, and Rose Gorman, his surety thereon. The following is a copy of the original petition: ‘The plaintiff says that heretofore, to-wit, on the twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1876, the said Mary Elizabeth Hoffman, a minor, over the age of 14 years, personally appeared before the probate court in and for said county of Franklin, and state aforesaid, and made choice of plaintiff as her guardian, which choice was then and there approved by said court, and the custody of the person and property of the said minor committed to plaintiff, who thereupon, on the said twenty-fifth day of January, A. D. 1876, took upon himself the burden of said guardianship, and is now such guardian; and the plaintiff further says that on the twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1870, the defendant Synon Fitzgerald was duly appointed guardian of said Mary Elizabeth Hoffman by the aforesaid probate court, and the said Synon Fitzgerald then took upon himself the burden of said guardianship of the person and property of said Mary Elizabeth Hoffman, said minor, then aged 10 years, and that, pursuant to the order and approval of said probate court in that behalf, the said Synon Fitzgerald and Joseph Norris, since deceased, with Rose Gorman, who, with said Synon Fitzgerald, have survived the said Joseph Norris, on the twenty-fourth day of September, A. D. 1879, by their certain written obligations, sealed with their seals, a copy of which is hereto attached, marked ‘A,’ and made a part of this petition, acknowledged themselves to be held and firmly bound to the state of Ohio in the penal sum of one thousand dollars, to be paid to the state of Ohio, when they should be thereunto afterwards required, which said written obligation was and is subject to a certain condition, in substance and the effect following: that if the above-named Synon Fitzgerald should faithfully discharge his duties as guardian of the person and estate of the said Mary Elizabeth Hoffman, and faithfully discharge the trust reposed in him as such guardian to said minor, and should also render an accurate statement of his transactions, with a just account of the money received by him from the estate of his said ward, and should deliver up the same to said court at such time as they should require, then the said obligation to be void, otherwise to remain in full force and virtue.
‘And the said plaintiff further says that after the granting of said guardianship to said Synon Fitzgerald, as aforesaid, and the execution of said bond, as aforesaid, the following sums of money came into the hands of said Synon Fitzgerald, as such guardian, to-wit: four hundred and six and 13-100 dollars on the thirty-first day of October, A. D. 1873; thirty dollars on the fourth day of December, A. D. 1873; thirty dollars on the fifth day of March, A. D. 1874; thirty dollars on the fifth day of June, A. D. 1874; thirty dollars on the fifth day of September, A. D. 1874; thirty dollars on the fifth day of December, A. D. 1874; thirty dollars on the fifth day of March, A. D. 1875; thirty dollars on the fifth day of June, A. D. 1875; thirty dollars on the sixth day of September, A. D. 1875; thirty dollars on the sixth day of December, A. D. 1875,-making a total sum of six hundred and seventy-six dollars and thirteen cents received by said Synon Fitzgerald, as guardian of the estate of his said ward, from the estate of his said ward; and the said plaintiff further says that the said Synon Fitzgerald did not faithfully discharge the trust reposed in him as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In the Matter of Estate of Bishop, 2004 Ohio 2197 (Ohio App. 4/30/2004)
...to the ward when such amount is ascertained by the probate court on the settlement of the guardian's final account."), and Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St. 86, 1 N.E. 227. The same general duties exist with regard to an administrator. See Zimmerman, supra (Williams, J., concurring). {¶18} In M......
-
In re Guardianship of Zimmerman, 29246.
...liability, no cause of action accrues to the ward upon the guardian's bond. Newton v. Hammond, 38 Ohio St. 430, and Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St. 86, 1 N.E. 227, approved and followed. On August 21, 1926, William H. Gunckel and Celia Zimmerman, representing that they were ‘friend and mother......
-
Guardianship of Zimmerman
... ... action accrues to the ward upon the guardian's bond ... Newton v. [141 Ohio St. 208] Hammond, 38 ... Ohio St. 430, and Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St. 86, ... 1 N.E. 227, approved and followed ... On ... August 21, 1926, William H. Gunckel and Celia ... ...
-
In re Schueneman's Estate, 119454.
...the guardian did not list the property in his hands for taxation until after the death of the ward. In the case of Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St. 86, 1 N.E. 227, it was held that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the settlement of guardians' accounts, following the case of Newt......