Fitz-Gerald v. Bailey

Mississippi Supreme Court April 15, 1881

Fitz-Gerald v. Bailey, 58 Miss. 658 (Miss. 1881)

Chalmers

Opinion of the Court

Chalmers, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of-the court.

The order of the Probate Court directing the investment of *660the ward’s money in'Confederate bonds was a nullity, as we held when this case was heretofore before us. 56 Miss. 578. The money is therefore to be regarded as remaining continuously thereafter in the guardian’s hands, and as still there. It was neither taken by him at interest, nor loaned out, nor mingled with his own, nor used by him. Under these circumstances he was not liable for interest upon it so long as he remained guardian, or so long as his ward remained a minor. Reynolds v. Walker, 29 Miss. 262; Roach v. Jelks, 40 Miss. 756 ; Crump v. Gerock, 40 Miss. 768. But his ward became of age in 1871, and it at once became his duty to settle with her and paj^ over this money to her, and he will be liable for interest from that date. Code 1857, p. 462, sect. 148 ; Garland v. Norman, 50 Miss. 238.

Reversed and remanded, for decree in accordance with this opinion. •

Reference

Full Case Name: W. H. Fitz-Gerald, Administrator v. Martha J. Bailey
Status: Published
Syllabus: Guardian and Ward. Money invested in Confederate bonds. Accountability for interest. Where a guardian, in pursuance of an order of the Probate Court, made in 1863, under an act of the Legislature approved August 2, 1861, invested his ward’s money in Confederate bonds, though such order was a nullity, and the guardian is chargeable with the money thus invested and lost, he cannot he made to pay interest on the same so long as his ward remained a minor and his guardianship continued; but if, upon the ward attaining majority, the guardian failed to account for the money so invested, he thereafter became chargeable with, legal interest on the amount thereof.