Baughn v. Shackleford

Citations

• 48 Miss. 255

Syllabus

<p>1. Trusts — guardian and ward. — Nothing will discharge securities for a debt due to wards, but the payment of the money. Wherefore, an agreement between a' guardian and one of the partners in a drug store, who was indebted to the wards, and whose debt was secured by statutory lien and personal security, to credit the amount of the guardian’s individual liability to drug store firm on debt thus due and secured to the wards, is held to be in violation of the guardian’s trust, and void as to the rights of the wards. And the like principle prevails, of course, where an agent of the guardian attempts to have his own liability canceled by the cancellation of a like sum upon securities held by the guardian in favor of the wards.</p> <p>2. Same — payments of money to guardian’s agent for the custody of wards’ securities. — A guardian, being absent in the Confederate army, in 1863, left a note, held as security for money due the wards, with his brother, to whom, during the guardian’s absence, the debtor applied and made a partial payment, which was credited on the note. l?our months after the guardian returned, he was informed of the payment, and accepted the money without objection. Held, that the length of time raises a presumption of ratification or acquiescence in the action of the custodian of the note, and that the payment was valid, and this, though the relation of principal and agent is not clearly shown to have existed.</p>