In re Guardinship of Blakeney

• Decision Date: 07 February 1902
• Citation: 89 N.W. 16,115 Iowa 607
• Parties: IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF BENJAMIN BLAKENEY, CATHERINE BLAKENEY AND SCHUYLER BLAKENEY, Appellees, v. D. M. WYLAND, Guardian, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

89 N.W. 16

115 Iowa 607

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF BENJAMIN BLAKENEY, CATHERINE BLAKENEY AND SCHUYLER BLAKENEY, Appellees, v. D. M. WYLAND, Guardian, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 7, 1902

Appeal from Shelby District Court.--HON. W. R. GREEN, Judge.

THE history of this case is as follows: On the fifth of February 1884, in Shelby county, Iowa, D. M. Wyland was appointed guardian of Benjamin, Catherine, and Schuyler Blakeney, minor heirs of Susan Blakeney, deceased. The minors were residents of Barry county, Mich., and the guardianship proceedings appear to have been instituted for the purpose of conveying their fractional interest in a tract of land in Shelby county. The first report of the guardian which appears of record bears date September 22, 1887, and acknowledges a balance in his hands, after paying all expenses and claims up to that date, of $ 434.45. No further report was made until November 20, 1899, when, in response to a citation from the court, said guardian presented an accounting in writing signed by him, in which, after acknowledging the balance of $ 434.45 in his hands on September 22, 1887, he adds "which sum I deposited in the Harlan Bank, of Harlan Iowa, to draw interest at six per cent. (6 per cent.) per annum; and it remained there continuously until the bank ceased to do business, in January, 1896, when it was transferred to my personal account with the Harlan State Bank, which went into the hands of a receiver December 10, 1896. The reason I did not pay over this money is that, after diligent inquiry, I could not learn the whereabouts of my wards, or either of them. I have no money now with which to pay, and submit this as my final report, with the request that the court make such order as may seem just and proper." To this report Benjamin and Catherine Blakeney (Schuyler Blakeney having died) filed exceptions November 24, 1899, denying that the trust funds had ever been deposited as such in the bank, but that the guardian had mingled them with his own funds and converted them to his private use, and asking that he be charged interest at 6 per cent., with annual rests. December 9, 1899, the guardian filed an amended report, claiming the benefit of the statute of limitations, to which claim the wards responded, alleging that they never had any knowledge that Wyland was acting as their guardian or that he had any moneys belonging to them, and that he fraudulently concealed and kept from them the knowledge of their rights in the premises until they discovered the same, about the time of the citation above referred to. They also plead the report filed by him November 20, 1899, as a written acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations. It should here be said that said wards arrived at their majority as follows: Catherine, February 14, 1886; Benjamin, June 24, 1887; and Schuyler, the day of , 1891. Schuyler died April 12, 1891. After hearing the evidence offered by the wards,--the guardian producing none, except the records in the guardianship proceedings, and his own testimony when called as a witness by the other party,--the court found that said guardian was justly accountable for the sum of $ 434.45, with interest thereon at 6 per cent., with annual rests, amounting in all to $ 900. This sum, less unpaid probate fees, if any, the court ordered the guardian to pay over within 10 days,--one-third to Benjamin Blakeney, one-third to Catherine Blakeney (now Ferris), and one-third to the administrator of Schuyler Blakeney, or, in event that there be no such administrator to the clerk, for the benefit of said Schuyler's estate. From this order the guardian appeals.

Affirmed.

Cullison & Robinson for appellant.

Thos. H. Smith for appellees.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

As will be seen from the foregoing statement, the only resistance which the guardian makes to the demand for an accounting is based on the statute of limitations. Under the circumstances disclosed by the record, this plea will not avail. For this conclusion there are two very satisfactory reasons:

I. His wards resided in a distant state, but his...