In re Wisner's Estate

• Decision Date: 18 December 1909
• Citation: 123 N.W. 978,145 Iowa 151
• Parties: In the Matter of the Estate of GILMAN H. WISNER, Minor
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

123 N.W. 978

145 Iowa 151

In the Matter of the Estate of GILMAN H. WISNER, Minor

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

December 18, 1909

Appeal from Hardin District Court.--HON. C. G. LEE, Judge.

Affirmed.

C. A Rogers and Wade, Dutcher & Davis, for appellant.

Geo. W Ward and Albrook & Lundy, for appellee.

OPINION

THE opinion states the case.--Affirmed.

SHERWIN J.

J. H Bales was the guardian of Gilman H. Wisner, a minor, for many years. In August, 1907, he filed his final report as such guardian and also his resignation. The resignation was accepted, and Mr. Ellis D. Robb was appointed guardian in his place. In accordance with the order of the court Mr. Bales filed a full and final report early in November, 1907, and soon thereafter Mr. Robb filed objections thereto as follows: "He finds among the assets of said guardian the following described real estate situated in Murray County, Minn.; the north half (1/2) of section No. sixteen (16) township No. one hundred twenty-six (126) range No. forty-two (42)." It was stated in said objections that J. H. Bales, guardian, bought said land with his ward's funds in January, 1903, paying therefor the sum of $ 43 per acre, when in truth and in fact it was not worth to exceed $ 25.50 per acre. Objection was also made to the purchase of a quarter section of land in Dickinson County, Iowa, for which it was alleged the guardian Bales had paid $ 40 per acre in March, 1902. It was alleged that the guardian had purchased both tracts of land without due investigation as to their quality and value, and carelessly and negligently, and an accounting for the money so invested was asked. There was an answer to the objections which alleged that in 1901 the district court of Hardin County authorized the expenditure by the then acting guardian of Gilman H. Wisner of $ 40,000 for the purchase of real property, and that it was in compliance with such authorization that the investments complained of were made, and that said investments were made in good faith, and the amount expended did not equal the sum of $ 20,000. The answer also alleged that both purchases and the amount paid for said land were duly reported to the proper court, and that said reports and purchases were formally approved by said court. Trial was had on the issues thus joined as to the Minnesota land only, the guardian having withdrawn objections to the purchase of the Dickinson County land, and after hearing the evidence, the objections of the...