Taylor v. Nichols

• Decision Date: 04 October 1887
• Citation: 5 S.W. 436,86 Tenn. 32
• Parties: TAYLOR, Guardian, v. NICHOLS and another.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

5 S.W. 436

86 Tenn. 32

TAYLOR, Guardian, v. NICHOLS and another.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 4, 1887

Error to chancery court, Jefferson county; C.J. ST. JOHN Chancellor.

Jesse L. Rogers, for complainant. W. F. Parks, for respondent.

LURTON J.

This is a bill filed for the purpose of procuring the removal of the estate of Tyler Aily, a person of unsound mind, from this state to the state of Arkansas. By proper proceedings, Aily was, while a resident of this state, adjudicated a lunatic and the defendant Nichols duly appointed and qualified as his guardian. After such appointment the ward either removed or was removed to the state of Arkansas, where he now resides. Since his removal, the complainant, a citizen of that state claims to have been appointed by the courts of that state guardian for said Aily. This foreign guardian now files this bill against the Tennessee guardian, alleging the residence of said Aily to be in Arkansas, and that he has been duly qualified as his guardian, and that there is a fund in the hands of the Tennessee guardian belonging to said Aily, and a fund in the chancery court in which this bill was filed likewise belonging to said Aily, and praying that the estate of his said ward may be removed to the state of Arkansas. The defendant demurred, and the bill was dismissed, and from this decree there is an appeal.

The principal ground relied upon to sustain this decree is that the lunatic, being an adult, and not a minor, the chancery court has no jurisdiction to sanction the removal of the estate of such lunatic out of this state. This ground of demurrer is not well taken. Jurisdiction to order the removal of the estate of a minor from this to another state has been regulated by statute. New Code, § 3414 et seq. But this statutory regulation does not extend to the case of an adult of unsound mind. By sections 4430 and 5041, the chancery court is given, concurrently with the county court, jurisdiction over the estates of idiots, lunatics, and persons of unsound mind. Although it is perhaps true that the chancery courts of this state had not, prior to the statute, jurisdiction to ascertain and declare lunacy, or appoint a guardian, yet there can be but little doubt but that where an inquisition had been had, and a committee or guardian appointed, a jurisdiction then arose, without regard to statute, in courts of chancery, to supervise and control the official conduct of such committee. Possibly, this supplementary jurisdiction arose from the general authority of courts of equity over trusts, trustees, and fiduciary persons. 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1312.

Whatever may be the origin of the jurisdiction over a declared lunatic, his guardian and estate, there can be no doubt that...