Wycoff v. Michael

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GRANGER
• Citation: Wycoff v. Michael, 95 Iowa 559, 64 N.W. 608 (Iowa 1895)
• Decision Date: 10 October 1895
• Parties: WYCOFF v. MICHAEL.

95 Iowa 559

64 N.W. 608

WYCOFF

v.MICHAEL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 10, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Wapello county; W. D. Tisdale, Judge.

L. J. Michael is the administrator of the estate of Thomas Bingham, deceased, who, in his lifetime, was guardian of the property of the plaintiff. From October, 1869, to April, 1873, Bingham, as guardian, received on account of his ward, as pension, the sum of $380.53. The plaintiff attained his majority in July, 1884. This proceeding was commenced by him in August, 1891. The petition, as originally filed, seems to have been with Bingham as defendant, as the answer is signed by him. It does not appear when he died. The petition, as first filed, shows the fact of the guardianship, the receipt of the money, a credit of $92.56, and a balance due, including interest, of $701.68. The answer of Bingham, filed in December, 1891, shows that he received as pension the sum of $284.50, and that he had expended the sum of $425. In April, 1894, the plaintiff amended his petition by showing that June 20, 1869, Bingham, with L. J. Michael as surety, executed a guardian's bond for the use of plaintiff; recited the conditions of the bond, and the facts as to the receipt of the pension money as guardian; and averred “that said Thomas Bingham, by the terms of the said bond, agreed to account for and pay the same to the plaintiff when he became twenty-one years old.” To the petition as thus amended, the defendant filed an answer admitting the execution of the bond as set forth in the petition, and averring that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Some testimony was taken under the issues presented, and the court ordered the defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of $400.80, and from the order the defendant appeals. Reversed.W. A. Work, for appellant.

McElroy & Roberts, for appellee.

GRANGER, J.

The only question presented on the appeal is as to the statute of limitations. It seems to be conceded that, unless the action is founded on the guardian's bond, the plea of the statute is well taken. In Humphreys v. Mattoon, 43 Iowa, 556, it is held that, where a guardianship ceases by a ward's arriving at full age, an action lies in favor of the ward; that after the ward becomes of age he stands in the relation of a creditor to his guardian; that his cause of action is then complete; and that, if he fails to bring suit within the time limited, his claim is barred. That this action was not originally intended as one on the bond is clear. It was simply an application for an accounting with the guardian, and for an order to pay over money found due. In fact, we think the character of the proceeding was not changed by the amendment. Nothing is asked as to the surety on the bond, and, for the...