Glass v. Glass

Supreme Court of Alabama

Glass v. Glass

80 Ala. 241

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 Ala. 241 (Glass v. Glass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glass v. Glass, 80 Ala. 241 (Ala. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

When this case was before us at the last term, we decided that a settlement of accounts by a guardian, made during the minority of the ward, and without a previous resigoation of the guardian, or other lawful termination of the relationship, was void for want of jurisdiction of the Probate Court in which the proceedings were had. — Glass v. Glass, 76 Ala. 368; Lewis v. Allred, 57 Ala. 628; Lee v. Lee, 67 Ala. 406.

The manner in which a guardian is authorized to resign is clearly stated in the statute. ILis resignation is required to be in writing, subscribed by him, and filed in the court from which his letters of guardianship issued. This becomes a court paper and is required to be entered of record. — Code, 1876, § 2768.

The record in this cause shows that the guardian’s account for a final settlement was filed on November 12,1877, or more than two months before the date of his resignation, which was January 14, 1878. The final settlement was made on the date of his resignation, and not until then. This could not operate retrospectively by relation to confer jurisdiction from the date when the Probate Court undertook to assume such jurisdiction.

The action of the Probate Court in declaring this settlement void, and in compelling the appellant to another settlement, was free from error, as are also the other rulings of the court which are assigned for error.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMERVILLE, J.

When this case was before us at the last term, we decided that a settlement of accounts by a guardian, made during the minority of the ward, and without a previous resigoation of the guardian, or other lawful termination of the relationship, was void for want of jurisdiction of the Probate Court in which the proceedings were had. — Glass v. Glass, 76 Ala. 368; Lewis v. Allred, 57 Ala. 628; Lee v. Lee, 67 Ala. 406.

The manner in which a guardian is authorized to resign is clearly stated in the statute. ILis resignation is required to be in writing, subscribed by him, and filed in the court from which his letters of guardianship issued. This becomes a court paper and is required to be entered of record. — Code, 1876, § 2768.

The record in this cause shows that the guardian’s account for a final settlement was filed on November 12,1877, or more than two months before the date of his resignation, which was January 14, 1878. The final settlement was made on the date of his resignation, and not until then. This could not operate retrospectively by relation to confer jurisdiction from the date when the Probate Court undertook to assume such jurisdiction.

The action of the Probate Court in declaring this settlement void, and in compelling the appellant to another settlement, was free from error, as are also the other rulings of the court which are assigned for error.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 Ala. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-glass-ala-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack