Staggenborg v. Bailey

• Decision Date: 24 May 1904
• Citation: 80 S.W. 1109,118 Ky. 301
• Parties: STAGGENBORG v. BAILEY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

80 S.W. 1109

118 Ky. 301

STAGGENBORG v. BAILEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 24, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Campbell County.

"To be officially reported."

In the matter of the probate of the will of Bridget Kelley deceased. From an order of the county court admitting the will to probate, Anna Staggenborg appealed to the circuit court, where S. C. Bailey was appointed guardian ad litem for the infant defendants. From an order fixing the compensation of the guardian ad litem, Anna Staggenborg appeals. Reversed.

P. J Ryan and T. J. Michie, for appellant.

L. J Crawford, for appellee.

BURNAM C.J.

By the will of Bridget Kelley, a widow, a small estate was devised in trust for the benefit of her only child, Anna Staggenborg, during her life, with remainder over to her three infant granddaughters, children of Anna Staggenborg. The will was probated by order of the Campbell county court. Anna Staggenborg prosecuted an appeal therefrom to the Campbell circuit court. Upon her motion, S. C. Bailey, an attorney, was appointed guardian ad litem for the infant defendants, in the absence of a statutory guardian. A trial before a jury resulted in a judgment invalidating the will. S. C. Bailey, as guardian ad litem, at the termination of the trial in the circuit court was allowed on his motion $50 for his services to be taxed as cost, and prosecuted an appeal as guardian ad litem from the judgment of the circuit court to this court in behalf of the infant defendants, which resulted in an affirmance of the judgment. Staggenborg, etc., v. Staggenborg, 77 S.W. 173, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1073. He subsequently filed the mandate of affirmance in the lower court, and moved for an additional allowance for his services and expenses as guardian ad litem. Over the objection of Anna Staggenborg, he was allowed an additional fee of $300, the cost of the transcript of the record and the necessary cost incurred by him in the Court of Appeals, and a judgment was entered directing the payment to him of these various sums, and that they should be taxed as cost and paid by plaintiff, who has appealed to this court. She asks a reversal on the ground that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to make the order for the additional allowance to the appellee after the affirmance of the judgment of the lower court by this court.

The duties of a guardian ad litem do not terminate with the rendition of a judgment in the trial court, but he may, when he thinks it to be to the interest of the infant defendants take an appeal therefrom, and his duties continue until the final determination of the cause, unless removed by the court, or terminated by the arrival of the infant at the age of majority. See 15 A. & E. Enc. of Law, 15; Reed,...