Ex parte George
Ex parte George
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Darter v. Spiers, 61 Miss. 148, is conclusive against the guardian, unless the imperative rule prescribed by §2111 of the Code of 1880, that “if the minor has a father or mother, the court shall determine whether the expense of maintaining and educating the ward shall be borne by his guardian or not, and how much may be so expended, and the guardian of a minor, who has a father or mother, shall not expend anything for the support or education of the ward until the court or the Chancellor in vacation shall have ordered that expenditure for that purpose shall be made by the guardian,” is dispensed with by the will of W. B. Barksdale.
We cannot construe this will to have such effect. The first clause of the will simply vests the estate of the testator in his widow and two children, and defines the interest of each therein. The second clause of the will authorizes the guardian to sell or dispose of any property which may belong to the children, or in which they may be interested, without any order of the chancery court for that purpose, but it does not provide or suggest how the proceeds derived from a sale or disposition of the property shall be expended, or that the guardian shall, in any other respect, be relieved .from the authority and control of the chancery court.
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ex Parte Fannie G. George, Guardian
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Guardian. Allowance for support of ward. Section 2111, Code of 1880, construed. Section 2111, Code of 1880, in relation to the guardianship of minors, provides that: “If the minor has a father or mother, the court shall determine whether the expense of maintaining and educating the ward shall be borne by his guardian or not, and how much may be so expended, and the guardian of a minor, who has a father or mother, shall not expend anything for the support or education of the ward until the court or the Chancellor in vacation shall have ordered that expenditure for that purpose shall be made by the guardian.” Under this provision the chancery court cannot, where the operation of the statute is unaffected by testamentary provisions, allow an account for expenditures made by a guardian for his ward without a precedent order of court, even though it be shown that the expenditures were entirely proper, and that a previous order authorizing the same should have been granted if asked for. 2. Same. Provision in will. Effect on 22111, Code of 1880. Case in judgment. B. died, leaving a will, the first two provisions of which were as follows: 1. “I give to my wife, F., and my two children, all my estate, to be equally enjoyed by them.” 2. “ I appoint my wife, F., guardian of my children, and empower her to sell any property, real or personal, in which they may be interested, without any order of the chancery court.” F. made expenditures for board, tuition, and medical attention for her wards without a previous order of court therefor. The court refused to credit her with such expenditures in her account against her wards. It was proven that the testator, at the time of making his will, knew that his widow would have no property except that left by him, and that his estate would not be sufficient to maintain her and his children in the style in which he had kept them. Held, that the two provisions of the will quoted do not dispense with the requirement of the statute above set out, that the guardian should have an order of ' court before making such expenditures.