Short v. Mathis

• Decision Date: 07 June 1899
• Citation: Short v. Mathis, 107 Ga. 807, 33 S.E. 694 (Ga. 1899)
• Parties: SHORT v. MATHIS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

33 S.E. 694

107 Ga. 807

SHORT v. MATHIS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 7, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where one has been duly appointed the guardian of the property of a minor, it becomes his duty to take possession of, and preserve for the benefit of his ward, all property real and personal, within his knowledge, that belongs to the minor. If, therefore, such guardian knows that his ward has interests in certain lands, and consents for a person who has no title thereto to enter upon and use such lands, and in consequence of such negligent conduct on the part of the guardian the ward loses the realty itself, as well as the rents, issues, and profits therefrom, the guardian becomes liable, not only for the rents, but for the value of the land.

2. When there has been a settlement between the guardian and ward after the latter has arrived at age, and, on account of the relation between the parties, the ward imposed special confidence and trust in her guardian, believing that he had made a full showing for all the property owned by her, but when she, several years afterwards, discovered that she had interests in certain real estate, of which her guardian knew before and at the time of settlement, and had fraudulently concealed from her, and had also, by fraudulent collusion with a party who had no interest in the land, suffered such stranger to the title to remain upon the premises, and in a year after such discovery of the fraud the ward institutes her suit against the guardian for the value of the land, and the rents and profits therefrom which she had lost through this negligent conduct of her guardian, her action is not barred by any statute of limitations.

3. In such a case the superior court of the county of the defendant's residence has jurisdiction of the case notwithstanding the land may be located in another county.

4. It follows that the court erred in sustaining a general demurrer to the plaintiff's equitable petition.

Error from superior court, Marion county; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Action by Mollie F. Short against Evan T. Mathis, executor. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

G. P Munro and C.J. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Lumpkin and Brannon, Hatcher & Martin, for defendant in error.

LEWIS J.

The plaintiff in error filed an equitable petition in Marion superior court, making substantially the following case: Thomas W. Harvey became guardian of the person and property of the petitioner in 1872, and as such guardian took possession of all her property, except an undivided one-seventh interest in 800 acres of land situated in Talbot county, Ga. He well knew that petitioner owned this interest in that land, and, instead of taking possession thereof for her, he colluded with one Brown, who was a brother-in-law of said guardian, and allowed Brown to take possession of said land, and collect and receive the rents thereof for his own use. Brown had died intestate and insolvent. There was no administration upon his estate. The petition further alleged that petitioner was young, and that she confided in her guardian, and relied upon his faithfully performing his duties as such, yet he concealed and suppressed from her his knowledge of her interest in the land mentioned. She reached her majority in 1880, and had a settlement with her guardian, who did not account to her for the land, or the rents and profits thereof, and did not inform her that she owned the land or any interest therein. The first time she received any information about her interest in the land was in 1891. She had then lost the land, and her profits therefrom, and she brought her action the following year against Thomas W. Harvey for the purpose of recovering the value of the land, with the profits. Harvey died pending the suit, and his executor, Evan T. Mathis, was made a party defendant. This petition was demurred to on the following grounds: (1) Because no cause of action was set forth; (2) because plaintiff had a full remedy at law; (3) because, under the allegations in the petition, the title to the realty in controversy was in plaintiff, and defendant should not be held liable for the value thereof. To the judgment of the court sustaining this demurrer, the plaintiff excepts.

1. There can be no question about the...