Buchanan v. Grimes
Buchanan v. Grimes
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Grimes was guardian of Mrs. Buchanan, and filed his final account as such in the chancery court, and Mrs. B., with her husband, was duly brought into court and urged some objec-' tion to the account as presented, and, at the April term, 1873, the guardian asked and obtained an order of court allowing him to “withdraw his final account” and “file an amended final account.” Without any step taken in the case until the January term, 1874, of the court, the final account first
It is claimed by appellee that the case falls within Gray, adm’r, v. Harris, 43 Miss., 421, because all parties were in court and bound to notice every step in the progress of the case. We think the case much more like that of Person et al. v. Nevitt, 32 Miss., 180, which was a bill in the nature of a bill of review to set aside a decree of dismissal of a cause because of surprise to complainant. We think it clear that the alteration of the account at the third term, of the court (the chancery courts then held four terms a year), and its being allowed without any notice of it to the ward, operated a surprise to her and entitles her to have the decree of allowance vacated. Though this proceeding is called a petition, it is in fact in the nature of a bill of review, and is treated accordingly.
The decree dismissing the petition is reversed and ' cause remanded, with directions to the chancery court to set aside and vacate the decree allowing the account and discharging the guardian, and for further proceedings as though such account had not been allowed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.