Smith v. Gummere. the proceeds of the sale of the lands should not be included therein, nor the interest on those proceeds, because, for them, his sureties as special guardian are solely responsible, since he never obtained any direction from the court to transfer those proceeds to his account as general guardian. The proper credits for board, clothing, pin-money, wages of a nurse, and for taxes, under the circumstances, fixed-Held, also, that the special guardianship fund is entitled to no part of the allowance for board, clothing &c., unless the amount of those allowances should prove greater than the debits of the general account, in which event the excess should be credited on the account of the special guardianship. Bill for relief. On exceptions to master's report. Mr. G. S. Cannon, Mr. Mercer Beasley and Mr. E. T. Green, for complainant. Mr. J. S. Aitkin, for the surviving administrator. Mr. James Buchanan and Mr. A. G. Richey, for W. J. Owens. THE CHANCELLOR. The bill is filed by Mary K. Smith, a minor, by General Mott, her guardian, against the administrators of her deceased guardian, her grandfather, Frederick Kingman, Esq., and his sureties in two bonds, one given as her general guardian and the other as her special guardian, appointed in proceedings in this court for the sale of land of hers at Edgewater in this state. The defendants, Samuel K. Wilson and Jonathan Steward, are the sureties in the bond given as general guardian, and Mr. Steward and William J. Owens are the sureties in the other. The object of the bill is to ascertain what amount is due to the complainant on each account, and to collect the amount by these proceedings from the sureties, the guardian having died insolvent. He was appointed general guardian February 9th, 1865, and special guardian July 3d, 1865. He never filed any inventory or account of his general guardianship, and made no report in the special guardianship after that in which he reported that he had invested $7,000 of the proceeds of the sale of the land ($7,200) in United States treasury notes of the second and third series of the seven Smith v. Gummere. thirty loan. The ward was born in Mr. Kingman's house, August 28th, 1863. Her mother died two days afterwards, and her father, who was Lieutenant-Commander Watson Smith, of the United States navy, died December 19th, 1864, when she was about one year and four months old. As general guardian Mr. Kingman received $2,829.79 from the administrators of her father, besides prize and pension-money from the United States government. He also collected the rent of a house and lot of hers (called in the proceedings the Lamberton property) on the corner of Second and Lalor streets in the sixth ward of Trenton. As special guardian he received the proceeds of the sale of the Edgewater property, $7,200, subject to the payment of the costs and expenses of the proceedings and his commissions. He appears to have made no investment of any of the money of the minor other than that before referred to, except that on the 31st of March, 1875, he took an assignment to himself, as guardian of the complainant, of a mortgage for $5,000 on his own dwelling-house in Trenton, subject to which mortgage he about a year previously had bought the property. On the envelope in which the bond and mortgage were enclosed, he wrote the word "canceled." They were not, in fact, canceled, but were valid securities at the time of his death. He died March 28th, 1881, and General Mott was appointed, in his stead, general guardian April 5th, 1881, and special guardian on March 14th, 1882. Mr. Kingman has left no account of either of the trusts, nor anything from which his dealings with them or either of them or the property thereof can be ascertained. By the order of reference in this cause, the master was directed to take and state an account as fully and as far as practicable, between the complainant and the administrators, of the moneys of the former which were in Mr. Kingman's hands as her guardian, and any investments, earnings or increase thereof, and to state a separate account, if practicable, of the disposition and investment by him of the respective funds received by him as general and as special guardian, and of the earnings or increase of those funds respectively, and to state an account of all Mr. Kingman's disbursements for the ward's support or benefit, and of all allow Smith v. Gummere. ances to which his estate is entitled on those accounts. He reported that Mr. Kingman's estate should be allowed for the board and maintenance of the ward $5 a week for the period between 1865 and 1870, $6 a. week from 1870 to 1879, and $7.50 a week after the last-named year; that he had made the following deductions for absence: In 1874 five months, in 1875 nine months, and in 1878 six months, and had allowed nothing for the board and maintenance of the ward in 1881, because she was not at Mr. Kingman's house in that year. He reported, also, that he had allowed for the board and wages of a nurse for one year, and that he found due from the guardian's estate on the 15th of March, 1882, on account of the general guardianship, $12,556.50, and on account of the special guardianship, $7,003.97, the latter sum being the price for which the Edgewater property was sold, after deducting costs, expenses and commissions. He also reported that in stating an account of the interest-money received by Mr. Kingman as general guardian, he had assumed that all the interest money received by him (whether on the one account or the other) had been received as general guardian, and had been used, so far as necessary, in the care, maintenance and education of the ward. Exceptions to the report were filed by the complainant, by the surviving administrator of Mr. Kingman and by Mr. Owens, one of the sureties on the bond given by Mr. Kingman as special guardian. The complainant filed eleven exceptions, the administrator fourteen and Mr. Owens nominally four, but actually fifteen. As to the complainant's exceptions, the first challenges the propriety of an allowance of $40.63, the amount of a bill of furniture (a bureau, a child's table and a bedstead), bought in 1869 by the guardian for the sole use of the ward. The excерtion states that the ward had at that time, in her guardian's house, a large quantity of furniture which she had derived from her father's estate, and which was sufficient for her use. is, however, no proof on that subject. Under the circumstances it was proper to allow the amount of the bill. It appears by the testimony of the ward's aunt, Mr. Kingman's daughter, that after There Smith v. Gummere. the guardian's death the ward gave away the child's table (it cost only $1.63) as a present to a little cousin of hers, and took away with her the bureau and the bedstead. Those articles were purchased for her comfort, and undoubtedly were ecessary for her. It is to be borne in mind that she was not a boarder in a boarding-house, nor was she among strangers. A boardinghouse keeper is bound to furnish the necessary articles of furniture for the use of the boarder. But here the orphan child was kindly furnished with a home in her grandfather's house, and it seems quite proper to allow, in the guardian's account, the cost of the articles in question, which were bought for her special use and to promote her comfort and convenience there. The table, it may be remarked, would seem to have been a toy. The second and third exceptions are, that the master has not charged the amount of certain prize-money received by the guardian in 1874 and 1875 from the administrator of the ward's father in two payments, one $504.38, July 4th, 1874, and the other $256.07, November 20th, 1875. These exceptions are sustained. The amounts should be entered on the debit side of the account. The fourth and fifth exceptions are based on a mistake, and were abandoned on the hearing. The sixth is an objection that the amount of pension-money with which the master has charged the guardian for 1879 is less than the amount received. The exception is well taken. The amount should be $280.60, instead of $255. There is an error of $25.60. The seventh exception is, that the master in charging the ward for board in the years 1871, 1872, 1873, 1876, 1877, 1879 and 1880, has made no deductions for her absences from the guardian's house in those years. General Mott testifies that from 1871 to 1881 she was at his house as a visitor, during her vacations, from ten to twelve weeks in each year. He also says that from 1877 to 1881 she spent part of every week-that is, from Friday to Monday-at his house. There should be a deduction for ten weeks' vacation in each of the years mentioned in the exceptions, but not for the weekly visits. Smith v. Gummere. The eighth exception is, that the master has made no deduction for absence of the ward in 1880, but has allowed the guardian for her board for the entire year. The exception is well taken. The proof is from the testimony of General Mott (and it is supported by that of Mrs. Welling on the subject) that the ward was away from the guardian's house for nine months of that year. The former testifies that her washing for the whole of the year was done at his house. The charge should be for only three months' board in that year. The ninth is, that the master has credited the guardian with $90 for pocket-money for the ward for 1881. Among the items, on the credit side of the account for that year, is one of $75 without prefix, or any statement or indication as to what it is for, and the other is for "allowance, $15." These two constitute the supposed allowance of $90 for pocket-money to which objection is made by the exception. It is suggested that the master intended to allow the $75 for clothing for that year, but there is no evidence of it. In 1881, from the beginning of the year up to within a day or two of her guardian's death, the ward was living with General Mott. The master has therefore allowed nothing for her board. The item of $75 should be stricken out, but there should be a credit of $30 for clothing for that year, and the allowance of $15 should stand. The tenth exception is, that the master has not charged the account with the rent of the Lamberton property for two years and a half of the period between 1874 and 1878. He has charged no rent for any part of the period between those years; so that there is not only no charge for rent for two years and a half of the time, but there is none for any part of the whole four years. The evidence shows that the property was unoccupied for some months before March, 1875, when a man named Lacy took possession of the premises under an agreement between him and the guardian for the sale of the property to him. The reason why it was not rented appears to have been that it was so much out of repair. It was the duty of the guardian to put it in tenantable condition. He had the means to do so. He let Lacy into possession under the contract. That agreement was made |