Long v. Norcom

• Citation: 2 Ired.Eq. 354,37 N.C. 354
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 31 December 1842
• Parties: SIMEON P. LONG v. JOHN NORCOM and others.

2 Ired.Eq. 354

37 N.C. 354

SIMEON P. LONG

v.JOHN NORCOM and others.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1842.

It is a general rule that a Court of Equity will not go beyond the income of a ward's estate for his matntenance and education.

But there is no doubt that the court may apply a part of the capital for a child's apprentice fee or otherwise putting him out in life; and that even for maintenance, as a matter of necessity, the capital may be applied, where, from the possession of property, the infant cannot be entitled to maintenance as a pauper, and, from mental imbecility or want of bodily health or strength, he cannot be maintained from the profits of his property, nor put out apprentice and maintained by his master.

The Court of Equity has the power, though it may seldom be willing to exercise it, to take the capital of the ward and apply it for maintenance, either future or past.

In ordinary cases the court would not relieve a guardian, who, without its previous sanction, had made expenditures for the maintenance and education of his ward beyond the income of the estate, though he might have acted from the best motives.

But the court will re-imburse the guardian out of the estate of his ward, when the expenditures were demanded by such circumstances, amounting, indeed, to physical necessity, as would have compelled any court to authorize them without a moment's hesitation.

This cause was removed from the Court of Equity of Perquimons county, at Fall Term, 1842, to the Supreme Court by consent of parties. The facts are stated in the opinion delivered in this court.

No counsel for either party in this court.

RUFFIN, C. J.

In the year 1829, the plaintiff was, by the County Court of Perquimons, appointed guardian to his infant brother, William Long, then about eleven years old, and so continued until the death of William, in the year 1838. The estate of the ward consisted of a negro girl, which was allotted him in the division of the negroes belonging to his deceased father's estate, and charged with the payment of the sum of $95 to another child by way of equality of partition. That negro the plaintiff received, and also the sum of $123 50 from the father's executor, as the ward's share of the general personal estate, and thereout he paid the charge of $95 above mentioned. The bill states, the guardian hired out the negro and annually returned his guardian accounts to the County Court; and that thereon a balance of $45 44 was due to the ward at the end of the year 1835, after defraying the expenses of the ward's tuition and the other charges on the estate. And it then further states, that William Long was from his infancy of a feeble constitution, not capable of manual labor and therefore not fit to be put to any trade; and that, as the ward was thus incapable of gaining a livelihood by bodily labor, the plaintiff thought it his duty, as his guardian, to send him to school and give him such an education as to qualify him for some other employment, by which he might support himself; and that, for these reasons, after keeping him at country schools for several years, he placed his ward at a respectable academy up the country during the years 1836 and 1837, at an expense considerably exceeding the current pecuniary income of his property. The bill further charges, that the negro woman belonging to the ward, after becoming grown, had children, and by reason thereof no hires could be got for her after the year 1834, but that she and her family became chargeable, and in 1836 the sum of $27, and in 1837 the sum of $48 were paid for keeping them. And the bill further charges, that, the health and constitution of his ward not becoming better at school, the plaintiff, at the earnest request of his brother and with the hope that it would essentially benefit his health and strengthen his constitution, consented that he should spend some time in the Western States, and supplied him with the necessary clothing for that purpose and money to bear his expenses. Upon all which transactions the plaintiff claims a balance due him in principal money in Junuary, 1838, of $669 74 1/2. During the year 1838, William Long, the infant, died, intestate, in Tennessee; and administration of his estate was granted to the defendant, who received from the plaintiff the negro woman and her four children, which she had while under the management of the plaintiff, and sold them for the sum of $1487 50. The prayer of the bill is, that the plaintiff may out of that sum be re-paid his advances, which he avers were made in good faith by him for the reasons set forth in the bill, and were unavoidable and necessary.

The answer does not deny any of the material statements of the bill, but insists, that in law the plaintiff had no authority to make expenditures for the ward or his estate, exceeding the income, and that these were not proper but extravagant expenditures, and therefore that they ought not to be re?? imbursed to the plaintiff.

By the consent of the parties it was referred, without prejudice, to the Master to enquire, what sums had been laid out by the plaintiff on...