Kinsey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kinsey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

187 S.E. 246, 53 Ga. App. 674, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 365

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 9, 1936

Docket25263

StatusPublished

This text of 187 S.E. 246 (Kinsey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinsey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 187 S.E. 246, 53 Ga. App. 674, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 365 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

The bond required of a guardian of an incompetent world-war veteran, as provided by the act approved August 5, 1929 (Ga. L. 1929, p. 248), and codified (Code of 1933, §§ 49-801 to 49-816), which is, as provided by the act, conditioned "for the faithful discharge of his duty as guardian” (§§ 49-807, 49-113), is an obligation for the benefit of the ward only, and a guarantee of the faithful discharge by the guardian of the duties of the guardian to the ward, and is not an obligation for the discharge of any duty the guardian may owe to a person other than the ward as provided in § 49-611, or otherwise, such as a failure of the guardian, where the ward is insane, to confine the ward where it is necessary to do so for the safety of others. A suit against the guardian and his surety on the bond, to recover damages, for the alleged unlawful homicide of the plaintiff's husband by an insane ward of the guardian, on the ground that the guardian had wilfully failed to confine the ward, failed to set out a cause of action, and the general demurrers by the defendants were properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

The bond required of a guardian of an incompetent world-war veteran, as provided by the act approved August 5, 1929 (Ga. L. 1929, p. 248), and codified (Code of 1933, §§ 49-801 to 49-816), which is, as provided by the act, conditioned "for the faithful discharge of his duty as guardian” (§§ 49-807, 49-113), is an obligation for the benefit of the ward only, and a guarantee of the faithful discharge by the guardian of the duties of the guardian to the ward, and is not an obligation for the discharge of any duty the guardian may owe to a person other than the ward as provided in § 49-611, or otherwise, such as a failure of the guardian, where the ward is insane, to confine the ward where it is necessary to do so for the safety of others. A suit against the guardian and his surety on the bond, to recover damages, for the alleged unlawful homicide of the plaintiff's husband by an insane ward of the guardian, on the ground that the guardian had wilfully failed to confine the ward, failed to set out a cause of action, and the general demurrers by the defendants were properly sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 246, 53 Ga. App. 674, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinsey-v-fidelity-casualty-co-gactapp-1936.