Wallis v. Bardwell
This text of 126 Mass. 366 (Wallis v. Bardwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The evidence offered was properly rejected, as immaterial. The rule is, that a guardian can make no contract binding upon the ward, or upon his estate. The guardian has only the control and management of the ward’s estate, with no title to it; a power not coupled with an interest. He may make contracts in his own name, but they only bind himself; and the ward does not become a party to them after the death or discharge of the guardian. Thacher v. Dinsmore, 5 Mass. 299. Hicks v. Chapman, 10 Allen, 463. Simmons v. Almy, 100 Mass. 239.
The plaintiffs bring themselves within no exception to the rule. The contract here relied on, moreover, is one which, inde[367]*367pendently of the rule, would not be binding on the minors, if made by them; for repairs on a dwelling-house are not necessar ries in the technical sense of the word. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 559.
Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
126 Mass. 366, 1879 Mass. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallis-v-bardwell-mass-1879.