Cuddeback v. Kent
New York Court of Chancery
Trumbull Kent, one of the defendants in this suit, was appointed special guardian, under the act of March, 1815, for the sale of the real estate of the complainant, who was then an infant; and upon that appointment, the defendants Gr. Price and A. M, Kent became sureties for the faithful performance of his trust as such guardian.
Read the full summary
Trumbull Kent, one of the defendants in this suit, was appointed special guardian, under the act of March, 1815, for the sale of the real estate of the complainant, who was then an infant; and upon that appointment, the defendants Gr. Price and A. M, Kent became sureties for the faithful performance of his trust as such guardian. The bill in this cause, after stating the appointment of T. Kent as guardian, and the execution of the bond by himself, and by the other defendants as his sureties, as required by the statute, stated that the real estate of the complainant was sold by the guardian…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The last clause of the second section of the act of March, Í815, in addition to the act concerning infants, which authorizes the prosecution of the guardian’s bond in any court having cognizance thereof, by direction of the chancellor, was not, as is supposed by the counsel for the appellant, intended to confine the remedy of the injured party to an action on the bond in the common law courts. Neither *96can it be set up as a defence to a suit upon the bond, either by demurrer or otherwise, that the suit has been instituted without an express order of the chancellor directing the…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Hood v. . HoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Farnsworth v. OliphantNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Alexander v. MercerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Towner v. TooleyNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Brown v. BaldeNew York Supreme Court · 1870
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.