Caffey v. . McMichael
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Bile in Equity, filed in I860, in Alamance, and removed to this Court, at June Term 1869. The suit was by a former ward against his guardian, for an account; under an order of the Court, the account had been taken; and the plaintiff filed two exceptions thereto, viz: 1. That there was a mistake to a small extent, in crediting the guardian at Eebruary Term 1869; 2. That the guardian was allowed for year 1859, disbursements to the amount of $625.86, whereas the ward’s income…
Read the full summary
Bile in Equity, filed in I860, in Alamance, and removed to this Court, at June Term 1869. The suit was by a former ward against his guardian, for an account; under an order of the Court, the account had been taken; and the plaintiff filed two exceptions thereto, viz: 1. That there was a mistake to a small extent, in crediting the guardian at Eebruary Term 1869; 2. That the guardian was allowed for year 1859, disbursements to the amount of $625.86, whereas the ward’s income for that time was only $42.84.
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The plaintiffs first exception is sustained. 'The guardian’s return to February Term 1869, shows that he was indebted to his ward in a small amount, and we see nothing to justify the.report, that the ward was indebted at ■that time, to the guardian.
As to the second exception: The power of a Court of Equity to apply the capital of a ward’s estate for maintenance, either future or past, is conceded; but as a general rule, the Court will not order the capital to be expended for maintenance or education. In Long v. Norcom, 2 Ire. Eq., 354, it was held that the guardian was entitled to be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bobby Floars Toyota, Inc. v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Wallis v. NealeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1897