White v. White
Decision Date | 09 May 1935 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 862 |
Citation | 230 Ala. 641,162 So. 368 |
Parties | WHITE v. WHITE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 27, 1935
Appeal from Probate Court, Clarke County; J.G. Cuninghame, Judge.
Proceeding on final settlement by W.M. White, as guardian of Vernon A White, a non compos mentis. From a decree passing and approving the account, the ward, by John E. Adams, as guardian ad litem, appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
John E Adams, of Grove Hill, for appellant.
A.S Johnson, of Thomasville, and Mallory & Mallory, of Selma, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree of the probate court entered on December 27, 1933, passing and approving the accounts and vouchers of the appellee on the final settlement of his guardianship of the estate of the appellant, Vernon A. White, a person non compos mentis, and the case was submitted on the motion of the appellee to dismiss the appeal, and on the merits.
It appears from the record that the appeal was taken on the 24th of March, 1934; that the citation of appeal was issued on the 26th of March, 1934, and service thereof accepted by the appellee's attorney on the 28th of March, 1934; that the bill of exceptions was presented to and approved by the trial judge on March 24, 1934.
On the 18th of March, 1935, the appellee filed a certificate of the appeal, and a motion to dismiss.
The record was filed on March 30, 1935, and the case was submitted on the 2d day of April, 1935, at the first call of the division to which the case belongs after the motion to dismiss was made, and on the submission the appellant made proof by affidavit going to show that the delay in filing the record was occasioned by the delay in its completion until after the first of the year 1935, and was not delivered to appellant until the 18th of February, 1935.
Counteraffidavit was filed by appellee, but it is not made to appear that appellee has suffered detriment by the delay.
The appeal is by a non compos mentis, through his guardian ad litem, and the questions presented are in respect to the alleged mismanagement of his estate, and in view of the circumstances and the nature of the appeal, we are of opinion that the motion to dismiss should be denied and the case considered on its merits. Let this order be entered. Campbell v. Sowell (Ala.Sup.) 159 So. 813.
In October, 1928, the exact date does not appear, appellee invested $12,139.35 of his ward's money in bonds issued by the Continental Mortgage Company, a private corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of North Carolina, with its home office in the city of Asheville. The sum paid for the bonds was par value with accrued interest. Some time later, appellee invested $3,000 of his ward's money in like bonds of the same corporation.
On the final settlement, the probate court, over the objection and protest of the guardian ad litem that said expenditures were unauthorized and against the public policy of this state as declared by section 74 of the Constitution of 1901, approved these expenditures and allowed the guardian credit therefor.
The guardian ad litem renews his objection and protest here.
The appellee offered evidence going to show that before the money of the ward was invested in said bonds, he had sought the advice and approval of the "Regional Attorney of the United States Veterans' Bureau of Birmingham, Alabama," as to whether it would approve an investment in "first mortgage bonds guaranteed by one of the large surety companies," and was advised that said
He also offered evidence showing that before making the investment he sought the advice and approval of the Union Indemnity Company, the surety on his guardian's bond, who has a "joint control agreement" with the guardian as to the management of the estate of the ward, and was advised through its local agent that
He also offered evidence showing that he sought and received the advice of different financial institutions and agencies as to the advisability of such investment, and that same met their approval; that he also invested some of his individual money in bonds of said Continental Mortgage Company.
The evidence shows that the Central Bank & Trust Company of Asheville, N. C., was named as trustee, and, under the trust agreement, "the Board of Directors of the Continental Mortgage Company could designate to be pledged with the Trustee as security for each issue of bonds *** (a) cash; (b) and/or United States Bonds; (c) and/or First Mortgages and/or instruments of like legal effect, and/or (d) obligations of similar mortgage companies."
The trust indenture also provides: (Italics supplied.)
The trustee allowed cash upward of $200,000 to accumulate in its hands, affecting the issue of the series of $1,000,000 of bonds, to which the bonds purchased by appellee belonged, and with this money on deposit closed its doors, forcing the Continental Mortgage Company into liquidation, entailing a loss to the bondholders of upward of 60 per cent. of their investments.
It is conceded that the expenditures here involved were made in the utmost of good faith, and appellee's major contention is that the United States has retained supervision and control over the investment of funds paid to guardians under the War Risk Insurance Act of Congress, through the Veterans' Bureau, as a government agency, and inasmuch as the purchase of the bonds was approved by the Regional Attorney of the Veterans' Bureau, he is not chargeable with the loss.
In support of this contention, section 450, USCA, title 38, pages 215, 216, is cited. That section provides:
There is nothing in the provisions of this section to indicate that it was the intent of the Congress to confer on the Veterans' Bureau any control or authority over such funds after they have come into the custody, possession, and control of a guardian, curator, or conservator, or to relieve, in any respect, the guardian, curator, or conservator of the responsibility imposed on such statutory trustees by the laws of the state under which they are appointed. The right of the director, "in his discretion," to suspend payment to any such "guardian, curator or conservator," does not connote an intent that supervision shall be retained after the money comes into the possession of such guardian, curator, or conservator.
The acts of Congress in respect to trust funds and trust estates resulting from the payment of money by the government under the War Risk Insurance Act, clearly evince the policy that such trust shall be administered and distributed under and in accordance with the laws of the state in which the beneficiary or cestui que trust has his residence, with the single exception that in case of the death of a beneficiary there remains unpaid installments, and he leaves no heirs or distributees entitled to take, such unpaid installments escheat to the United States instead of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Ted's Game Enterprises
...& Fin. Co., 218 Ala. 681, 683, 120 So. 165, 166 (1928). Accord Ex parte Gauntt, 677 So.2d 204, 212 n. 5 (Ala.1996); White v. White, 230 Ala. 641, 649, 162 So. 368 (1935); and Ex parte Western Union Tel. Co., 200 Ala. 496, 76 So. 438 Chavannah and Loiseau, supra, require that a game, scheme,......
-
Rand v. McKittrick
...King v. Talbot, 40 N.Y. 76; Harvard College v. Armory, 9 Pick. 446; 3 Bogert on Trust & Trustees, pp. 2036, 2037, sec. 679; White v. White, 230 Ala. 641, 162 So. 368; v. Reed, 80 Conn. 401, 68 A. 849; Clark v. Clark, 167 Ga. 1, 144 S.E. 787; White v. Sherman, 168 Ill. 589, 48 N.E. 128; Sell......
-
St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Toberman
... ... 641, ... 98 S.W.2d 699; Mattocks v. Moulton, 84 Me. 545, 24 ... A. 1004; Reed v. Reed (1908), 80 Conn. 401, 68 A ... 849; White v. Sherman (1897), 168 Ill. 589, 48 N.E ... 128; Tucker v. State (1880), 72 Ind. 242; In re ... Taylor's Estate (Mo. App., 1928), 5 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Ware Lodge No. 435, A.F. & A.M. v. Harper
...of the adoption of the Constitution of 1875. Constitution of 1875 art. 14, § 10; Journals of the Constitution of 1875--White v. White, 230 Ala. 641, 645, 162 So. 368; South & N. A. R. Co. et al. v. Gray, 160 Ala. 49 So. 347. No subsequent amendment of the charter of appellant is made or sho......