Harris and Wife v. . Carstarphen

69 N.C. 416
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 69 N.C. 416 (Harris and Wife v. . Carstarphen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris and Wife v. . Carstarphen, 69 N.C. 416 (N.C. 1873).

Opinion

Settle, J.

The defendant occupied the double confidential relation to the feme plaintiff of guardian and father-in-law, having married her mother.

On the eighth day after the ward’s arrival at the age of twenty-one, he procured from her a receipt in full settlement of his guardian accounts.

She now alleges that the defendant, taking advantage of her ignorance and confidence, has greatly imposed upon her, •and demands an account of his guardianship.

He sets up his receipt, or rather release in bar of all right of action. When a guardian has a settlement with his ward, shortly after the wards maturity, in the absence of her advisers and friends, the law, founded in public policy, presumes fraud, and throws the burden of rebutting that presumption upon the guardian.

*419 The policy is “ to prevent fraud, and not merely to redress it.” Here the ward was invited to a settlement hy the .guardian, very soon after her maturity, and it was made in the presence of a single person to whom the ward was introduced for the first time when she entered the room to make the settlement.

We have no hesitation in putting this release out of the way, and giving the ward an opportunity to surcharge and falsify the accounts of the guardian; on the other hand, if the defendant has acted with the good faith and prudence demanded of a guardian, he will also have an opportunity of establishing it before the tribunals of the country. Williams v. Powell, 1 Ired. Eq. 460; Lee v. Pearce, 68 N. C. Rep. 76.

Let it be certified that there is no error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Carroll v. Rountree
243 S.E.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
Cross v. Beckwith
192 S.E.2d 64 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
McNeill v. . McNeill
25 S.E.2d 615 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
National Surety Co. v. State ex rel. Heimann
103 N.E. 105 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Smith v. . Moore
62 S.E. 892 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1908)
Gillett v. Wiley
126 Ill. 310 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1888)
Morris v. . Willard
84 N.C. 293 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
Egerton v. . Logan
81 N.C. 172 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 N.C. 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-and-wife-v-carstarphen-nc-1873.