Otis v. Hall

• Decision Date: 01 November 1889
• Citation: 22 N.E. 563,117 N.Y. 131
• Parties: OTIS v. HALL.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

117 N.Y. 131

22 N.E. 563

OTIS

v.HALL.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 1, 1889.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

This was an accounting by Stephen S. Otis, as guardian of Henry Hall. The guardian's account, as presented to the surrogate's court of Lewis county, charged the ward for 12 years' board, $1,248; wearing apparel, $240; interest on the board and clothing bill, $236.57. The account credited the ward for pension money received between 1867 and 1879, $576.57; work on farm $250. It appeared that on his own application Otis was, on the 14th of May, 1866, appointed guardian of the person and estate of the infant, and in February, 1886, he presented his final account, verified in the usual manner. The ward excepted to every item of credit claimed by the guardian, ‘for any money paid, or for food, clothing, or care provided,’ upon several grounds, and, among others, (1) that while still an infant the guardian ‘took him into his family’ as one of its members, without any intention of charging for his board, care, or support, and in that character retained and treated him, the infant, in the mean time, working for the guardian on his farm and otherwise, as he dictated, and in such labor earning more than enough to pay for his board, clothing, and maintenance; (2) that the money with the receipt of which the guardian charged himself was granted by the government of the United States to the ward as pension money on account of his father's services as a soldier and death in the Rebellion of 1861, and was inapplicable to any demand of the guardian, and was not in fact so applied by him, and the ward asked that Otis be decreed to pay over to him the funds so received, with interest. The issues thus presented were heard by the acting surrogate, and from his report it appeared that the exceptions were well founded in fact, and, as matter of law, he decided ‘(1) that, having assumed the relation of parent to his ward, the guardian can make no charge for support, and the ward cannot receive pay for services; (2) that, having agreed with the stepfather of the ward that he would pay over to the ward the money he should receive, and interest when he became of age, and having taken the child on that agreement, the guardian cannot now charge for support, and take that money for recompense.’ The surrogate therefore charged the guardian with the sums received by him, with interest, and, after deducting his commissions and certain expenses, directed him to pay the balance, viz., $1,042.56, to the ward, with costs of the proceedings. Upon appeal by the...