Young v. Young
| Decision Date | 17 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4-6206 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. YOUNG, GUARDIAN |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Poinsett Probate Court; J. F. Gautney, Chancellor reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
C. T Carpenter, for appellant.
John S Mosby and Coleman & Fraley, for appellee.
A policy of life insurance was payable half to the wife of the insured and a fourth to each of two sons, Lester and Martin, who were minors when their father died. The appellant, Lester Young, was nearly eleven years of age when the insurance became payable in 1926. Dave Young (another son of the insured) was appointed guardian of Lester and collected as Lester's interest in the insurance $ 314.37. It is not contended that Dave contributed personally to Lester's support, or that any of the insurance money was expended for necessary purposes; nor was the guardianship account ever stated to the court, or a settlement made.
March 17, 1939, Lester petitioned the Poinsett probate court for an order requiring an accounting. [1] September 7, 1939, there was a motion for judgment, the contention being that Dave had collected $ 400 belonging to his ward. H. T. Bonds and Jess Bonds were mentioned as sureties on the guardian's bond. The prayer was for judgment for $ 400 with 6 per cent. interest from March 26, 1926, a total of $ 650. [2]
October 11, 1939, Dave Young and H. T. Bonds moved to vacate the judgment, alleging (1) that the ward's action was barred by limitation; (2) that after the citation was served "Lester voluntarily gave assurances the matter was being dropped, and that by reason of this conversation he (Dave) dismissed the subject from mind"; (3) that only $ 200 was collected on Lester's account; (4) that in the exercise of due care the guardian deposited this money in First National Bank of Lepanto, and through failure of the bank the money was lost; and (5) that Lester Young is non compos mentis, and therefore could not maintain the action. [3]
On the motion to vacate, Dave Young testified that he collected $ 628.73 for Martin and Lester Young, but paid attorney John W. Scoby $ 50 for making the collection. Lester's part was deposited in First National Bank of Lepanto "as guardian." Witness made his personal deposits in this bank and also deposited partnership funds of Young Brothers. After the bank failed dividends aggregating twelve per cent. were paid and retained by the guardian. [4] There was objection to Young's testimony relating to his relations with the bank.
The court set aside the former judgment, but rendered judgment against Young and his bondsmen for $ 65.49, with interest at six per cent. from date.
Was the action barred by limitation? It is insisted that § 8939 of Pope's Digest is applicable. [5] It is conceded That the citation was not issued within three years from the time Lester became of age. The statute of limitation does not begin to run in favor of a guardian until his discharge. Connelly v. Weatherly, 33 Ark. 658. We think the court had jurisdiction to render judgment on the citation, although the amount is shown to have been erroneous. That an excess amount was adjudged to Lester is due to the action of appellees in not answering the citation, unless answer was excused by the conduct of appellant in assuring his brother the proceeding would not be pressed. While in the motion to vacate there is an allegation that Lester did make statements he did not intend to press the suit, Dave did not testify that any representations were made, or mention a conversation to the effect alleged in the motion.
There is no evidence that fraud was practiced on the court or that Dave Young was deceived by his brother regarding prosecution of the suit, but this becomes unimportant in view of the fact that the judgment was set aside.
The amount collected for the ward was $ 314.37, and the check was deposited promptly after its receipt early in June, 1926. The bank failed "in April or May, 1927." [6] The money had then been in the hands of the guardian almost a year. No report of the loss was made to the probate court. There was no acknowledgment of dividends amounting to 12 per cent., or any other sum, although in his testimony the guardian conceded such dividends had been collected. For more than thirteen years the law requiring annual settlements was disregarded. Even now the only evidence that the ward's money was deposited in the bank is the guardian's recollection of what occurred more than a decade ago.
Amendment No. 24 to our Constitution provides that "the regular terms of the courts of probate shall be held at such times as is now or may hereafter be prescribed by law."
Section 2 of act 3, approved January 18, 1939, abolishes terms of probate courts as they formerly existed and makes them co-extensive with those of chancery courts. It also provides that "the various chancery courts of the state shall be open at all times, and may be in session in two or more counties on the same day, and the chancellor of any circuit may hear and determine all probate matters, in any county in which he may be sitting, for any county in his circuit."
Terms of chancery court in Poinsett county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilburn v. First State Bank of Springdale
...courts of law, not equity, after the adoption of the Probate Code and were not consolidated with the chancery courts. Young v. Young, 201 Ark. 984, 147 S.W.2d 736; Mills v. Latham, supra. See also, Thompson v. Dunlap, 244 Ark. 178, 424 S.W.2d The distinction between probate jurisdiction and......
-
Harris v. Whitworth
... ... it was held in the Campbell case, supra, that: ... "It is true that the probate court is still a court of ... law as was held in Young v. Young, 201 Ark ... 984, 147 S.W.2d 736, where we said: 'Although probate ... courts are presided over by the chancellor, they continue to ... ...
-
Harbaugh v. Myron Harbaugh Motor, Inc.
...relationship is acknowledged, or until the guardian accounts and is discharged, or in some way repudiates the trust. Young v. Young, 201 Ark. 984, 147 S.W.2d 736 (1941); In re Walls' Guardianship, 179 Misc. 924, 38 N.Y.S.2d 879 (Sur.Ct.1942); Bagwell v. Hinton, 205 S.C. 377, 32 S.E.2d 147 (......
-
Hall v. Hall, 81-135
...appeal is from the probate court, which is a court of law. Merrell v. Smith, 226 Ark. 1016, 295 S.W.2d 624 (1956); Young v. Young, 201 Ark. 984, 147 S.W.2d 736 (1941). ...