Hudson v. Newton
| Decision Date | 27 May 1907 |
| Citation | 103 S.W. 170,83 Ark. 223 |
| Parties | HUDSON v. NEWTON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; Charles W. Smith, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
The appellee, as guardian of her minor son, Raymond Hudson presented to the probate court of Union County her first and final settlement with her ward's estate as follows: She charges herself:
By 1/4 as shown by last settlement of estate
$ 916.58
By cash
25.00
She asks the following credits:
By full amount of debits
$ 941.50
To full amount of credits
876.16
Balance due
$ 65.42
The settlement was postponed, notice given as required by law and an attorney appointed to represent the minor. The cause came on to be heard, and the record recites: "The court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the items and things included in each of said accounts are necessaries furnished by said guardian to said ward, and are correct charges, and that the account is correct, and should be approved by the court." The court adjudged an attorney's fee and costs also to be paid out of the estate, and ordered the guardian and her bondsmen discharged upon the payment of the sum found due upon the settlement, as thus approved, into the registry of the court. The appellant Raymond Hudson, appealed to the circuit court.
Appellee filed what she designates as a petition in which she sets up, among other things, that she used her own funds during the administration of her first husband's estate to educate and support their children, among them appellant; that she had since become his guardian. She sets out her account with his estate as above, alleges that she once had receipts for the sums expended which had been destroyed, but that her books showed most of the items charged in her account; that same was correct. She prayed that evidence be taken, and that her account and settlement be approved and confirmed. Appellant introduced in evidence the account of the appellee supra. He also introduced the record of the chancery court of Union County, showing that on September 29, 1904, his disabilities of nonage were removed, he being at that time 19 years of age. The evidence showed that the settlement of the guardian with her ward was approved July 20, 1904.
On behalf of appellee it was shown that vouchers held by her for sums expended for appellant and other children were destroyed on one occasion while appellee was away from home; that appellant was present when this was done. He however testified that he thought vacant leaves of the book were being torn out and destroyed. He did not report the matter to any one. Appellee testified that, during the time she was the administratrix of her first husband's estate, she fed and clothed appellant, "furnished him everything, every luxury and pleasure and all the schooling he would take." She paid for all the necessaries for which she has charged his estate with her money, and besides furnished him other necessaries for which she has not charged, also used her own money for his pleasure for which no charge was made. She showed that appellant did nothing to repay her for the necessaries furnished. Appellant himself testified that during the years he was with his mother when he needed anything like clothing he ordered it "tailor made". He testified that he supposed the estate paid for it, and if not he wanted the estate to pay it. Appellee testified that since appellant's manumission by the chancery court he had expressed himself as satisfied with the settlement; had said that it was "all right". There was proof tending to show that appellant after his disabilities were removed had said that the settlement of his mother with the probate court was all right; that he should pay the account, and would. The testimony of appellant himself tended to show that, if the account of his mother for the necessaries was correct, he was willing to pay it, and was willing for the court to determine whether or not the account was correct. The testimony of appellee was that the amounts charged were correct. She could not make an itemized statement because the books containing items were destroyed. Her account shows the aggregate amounts from pages of the ledger.
The court, after hearing the evidence, found that the settlement made with the probate court should be approved, and accordingly entered judgment approving and confirming the settlement, and also judgment against appellant for all costs. This appeal followed.
Affirmed.
R. L. Floyd, for appellant.
Smead & Powell, for appellee.
OPINION
WOOD, J., (after stating the facts.)
First. It was not shown that the guardian derived any income from the ward's estate. The actual relation of parent and child existed between appellant and appellee during the time that appellant is charged for board and clothing. It is not contended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nashville Lumber Co. v. Busbee
...exercised ordinary care, appellant having tried the case on the theory that decedent was a trespasser. It cannot now shift its position. 83 Ark. 223; Id. 575; Id. 10. 3. The testimony of Wiley was not competent either to show due care on the part of defendant or that the boy was guilty of n......
-
Sizer v. Midland Valley Railroad Company
... ... foundation of the action and is therefore also a part of the ... record proper. Sorrells v. McHenry, 38 Ark ... 127; Newton as Collector v. Askew, 53 Ark ... 476; Hudson v. Newton, 83 Ark. 223, 103 ... S.W. 170, and North State Fire Ins. Co. v ... Dillard, 88 Ark ... ...
- Parker v. Wilson
-
McCracken v. McBee
...unless he himself does equity. He cannot assail the settlement for fraud in taking credit for such expenditures. 48 Ark. 386; Id. 297; 83 Ark. 223. 5. Even if there were any fraud, either actual or constructive, perpetrated in this case, yet the appellee has not placed himself in a position......