Appeal from Circuit Court, Knox County.
Gillum Vs. Parker's Guardian
ACTION: Affirmed
Court of Appeals of Kentucky. GILLUM ET AL. v. PARKER'S GUARDIAN ET AL. March 19, 1907. CARROLL, C. In 1895 C. B. Ross was appointed by the Knox county court as guardian of James M. Parker, and qualified and executed bond for the faithful discharge of the trust, with C. C. Gillum and G. P. Bayne as his sureties. After his appointment, Ross removed from the state, and in 1901 C. D. Shipley was appointed guardian in his stead. Shipley brought this action on the bond to recover the sum of $500 that he alleged Ross as guardian had received for his ward after his appointment as guardian by the Knox county court, and that he had failed to make any settlement as guardian or account for the funds received by him for his ward. The sureties set up in their answer that the guardian, soon after his appointment by the Knox county court, removed with his ward to the state of Tennessee, and that he was appointed guardian by the proper court of the county in Tennessee to which he removed, and made settlements as guardian with the Tennessee court, which settlements were approved by the court; and relied on the settlements made in Tennessee as a protection against any recovery on the bond executed by the guardian in this state. It appears from the evidence that the guardian, soon after his appointment by the Knox county court, received on February 25, 1896, $293.76 due his ward. This was before his removal to the state of Tennessee and before his appointment as guardian by the courts of that state. No part of this amount was legally or properly expended for the use of the ward. In fact, the record does not disclose that any of it was used by the guardian in maintaining or educating his ward. The records of the Tennessee court show that the guardian did not in the settlements in that state account for any part of the fund received by him as guardian under his appointment by the Knox county court. It was his duty as guardian to settle his accounts with the Knox county court, and to furnish that court with a statement of the money received for his ward, and the disposition made of it, and in failing to do this he committed a breach of the bond, for which his sureties are liable. The removal of the guardian to Tennessee, and his appointment as guardian by the courts of that state, did not relieve him from the duty he owed to his ward under his appointment in this state, or exonerate his sureties from liability for funds of the ward received under the appointment in this state and not accounted for. The chancellor adjudged that the sureties were liable in the principal sum of $293.76, with interest thereon at biannual rests, and in this judgment we concur, and it is affirmed.

Last Update