Scattergood V Ingram

• Decision Date: 02 April 1912
• Docket Number: 12645
• Citation: 98 N.E. 923,86 Ohio St. 76
• Parties: Scattergood v. Ingram.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

98 N.E. 923

86 Ohio St. 76

Scattergood v. Ingram.

No. 12645

Supreme Court of Ohio

April 2, 1912

One sustaining family relation to another - Cannot recover for services rendered the other, when - Guardian may claim for services rendered ward, when - Allowance for services under Section 10953, General Code.

1. The doctrine that where two persons sustain to each other a family relation one cannot recover against the personal representatives of the other on account of services rendered in that relation except on proof of a contract to make compensation therefor, does not apply to a claim by a guardian for services rendered to an imbecile ward.

2. In such case allowance for services and compensation is by Section 10953, General Code, to be determined by the court settling the guardian's account, and, it not being a personal claim against the ward, it need not in case of his decease, be presented to his personal representatives.

Facts are stated in the opinion.

Messrs Metzger & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Plaintiff in error contends that services rendered by Sarah E. Ingram in caring for and nursing her mother and for boarding her mother, while her mother was in her, Sarah E Ingram's home, is conclusively presumed to be rendered gratuitously unless there was an express contract entered into between the said mother and daughter, whereby one was to pay for such board, care and nursing, and the other to receive pay for the same. Hinkle v. Sage, 67 Ohio St. 256; Jurling v. Garner, 8 N. P., 277, 11 Dec., 439; McCollister v Moore, Dayt., 247; In re Dunn, Goebel, 297; Drewry v Rightmire's Admr., Dayt., 112; Poorman v. Kilgour, 26 Pa. St., 372; Hertzog v. Hertzog, 29 Pa. St., 465; Finch v. Finch, 4 W. L. B., 908, 7 Dec. R., 673.

Mr. K. L. Cobourn, for defendant in error.

The courts of Ohio have not as yet decided that a guardian, whether she is a daughter or a stranger, is not entitled to be compensated for the services rendered her ward, both in the care of her property and her person. Section 6288, Revised Statutes; Section 10953, General Code; 2 Rockel's Probate Practice, Sec. 1490.

The statute above cited clearly makes it the duty of the probate court to allow or fix the amount of the compensation, and in no other manner does the statute authorize a guardian to receive compensation except by the allowance of the probate court only. 2 Rockel Probate Practice, Secs. 1485, 1487-1490, 1518; Section 6304, Revised Statutes; Section 10991, General Code.

In the case of Gorman v. Taylor, 43 Ohio St. 86, this court held that the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction in the settlement of such accounts, following the case of Newton v. Hammond, 38 Ohio St. 430.

BY THE COURT.

Sarah E. Ingram was appointed guardian of the person and estate of her mother, Rachel A. Scattergood, who had been adjudged an imbecile in July, 1904. She continued in the discharge of the duties of such guardian until the death of the ward in October, 1907. Thereafter she filed in the probate court her account as such guardian, and asked for the allowance of certain items which she deemed reasonable on account of...