Hazelton v. Douglas
This text of 72 N.W. 637 (Hazelton v. Douglas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The complaint shows that Douglas never was the legal guardian of Mrs. Dudley, although a formal order had been made appointing him. It was supposed, however, that he was her guardian, and he gave his bond, with th& defendants as his sureties, and by means thereof obtained possession of $20,000 worth of property. The bond was given voluntarily. It contravened no statute. It was not even repugnant to the policy of the law. It induced the delivery to the principal of the supposed ward’s entire fortune. It was, within the rule of a vast number of authorities, a good voluntary bond in the hands of Mrs. Dudley. To hold otherwise would be to do rank injustice. 1 Brandt, Suretyship & G. §§ 22, 23; Lewis v. Stout, 22 Wis. 234; Klauber v. Charlton, 45 Wis. 600; U. S. v. Tingey, 5 Pet. 115.
By virtue of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff against Mrs.- Dudley and the garnishment of Mr. Douglas, the plaintiff has undoubtedly become subrogated to the rights of Mrs. Dudley to the amount of his judgment. Such subrogation operates precisely as an assignment by Mrs. Dudley to him of so much of her claim against Douglas. It follows that a good cause of action is stated.
It is manifest that there is no defect of parties plaintiff or defendant.
By the Court.— Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 N.W. 637, 97 Wis. 214, 1897 Wisc. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazelton-v-douglas-wis-1897.