Pendexter v. Cole

22 A. 560, 66 N.H. 556
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedJune 5, 1891
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 A. 560 (Pendexter v. Cole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pendexter v. Cole, 22 A. 560, 66 N.H. 556 (N.H. 1891).

Opinion

Clark, J.

No action can be maintained against a guardian personally for a debt of his ward. The guardian’s duty is to take care of the person and estate of his ward, collect his dues, pay his debts if he has sufficient assets, and protect his rights and interests generally.- G. L., c. 184, s. 3. The remedy for a breach of his duty is by an action upon his bond. Whether the ward’s property *557 lias been judiciously and legally managed and invested by the guardian is a proper subject of investigation and inquiry upon the adjustment of the guardian’s accounts in the probate court, but it is not open to inquiry in a suit against the ward for the recovery of a debt. A creditor may compel a guardian to adjust his accounts, and if he has assets in his hands and refuses to pay a judgment recovered against his ward, it will be a breach of the condition of his bond, and the creditor’s remedy is by an action upon the guardianship bond. Davis v. Drew, 6 N. H. 399, 400; Conant v. Kendall, 21 Pick. 36.

Motion denied.

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Related

Sturgis v. Sturgis
93 P. 696 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 A. 560, 66 N.H. 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendexter-v-cole-nh-1891.