McTeer v. Le Baw

• Decision Date: 02 October 1886
• Citation: 2 S.W. 18
• Parties: McTEER and Wife <I>v.</I> LE BAW and others.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

2 S.W. 18

McTEER and Wife

v. LE BAW and others.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 2, 1886.

Appeal from chancery court, Blount county.

Bill charging county justices with failure of duty. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

R. M. Hood and W. A. McTeer, for complainants, McTeer and Wife. S. P. Rowan and Cates & Son, for respondents, Le Baw and others.

SNODGRASS, J.

This is a suit against the chairman, who took bond, and certain justices, of the county court of Blount county, who failed to require the renewal of the bond of Joseph Miller, as guardian of Ruth Jeffries, now Ruth McTeer, complainant. Miller was appointed guardian on the first day of February, 1869, and entered into bond in the penalty of $150, with one surety, then insolvent. At the time of the execution of this bond, defendant Goddard was presiding in the county court. There was then due to the ward $211.20 from the United States government; she being entitled, under the pension laws, to an allowance of eight dollars per month from the nineteenth of November, 1866. The charge as to Goddard is that he knowingly failed in the discharge of his duty, in taking a grossly insufficient bond, in which the penalty was much less than the amount due the ward, and in taking security which was wholly insolvent, and in taking or requiring only one security, whereas the statutes plainly require two or more sufficient sureties, and that the conduct of defendant Goddard in this respect was grossly negligent. In reference to the other defendants, who were justices of the county court for several years, to the majority of the ward, it is charged that they knowingly, willfully, and maliciously failed to require the renewal of said bonds, the rendering of accounts by the guardian, and his removal, etc. It is then alleged, and subsequently proven, that complainants sustained a loss of over $2,000 in consequence of this neglect.

The evidence sustained no part of their charge as to the defendant justices except that these defendants failed to require the performance of the alleged duty of the guardian to renew his bond, and make settlements; and in this, of course, they were negligent; but it does not appear that they knowingly failed to do it. Their attention does not appear to have been called to it, and there is nothing in the omission on their part except negligence.

As to the chairman, Goddard, it may be said that the evidence was better than the allegation. He was shown to have been...