Archives of Maryland, Volume 0200, Volume 1, Page 0153 - Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 1, Page 153
clear space clear space clear space white space

GRAIN V8. BARNES AND FERGCSSON. 158

The defence made by the answer was, payment in whole, or in
part, and sundry objections to the form of the bill, were urged,
at the hearing. In evidence of payment, the defendants rely
partly upon a paper filed, containing a memorandum in Comp-
ton's hand writing, by which he charges himself with "amount
of Barnes' draft $500," which draft was not produced nor was
any proof offered of its payment, or to show upon what account
it was drawn. Another credit of $1500, was also claimed by
the defendants, the character of which will appear in the
Chancellor's opinion.

The first point noticed by the Chancellor, was the alleged
want of jurisdiction in the court to decree a payment of the
legacy, the courts of law being fully competent to give relief,
in reference to which, he said :]

THE CHANCELLOR:

Considering this as the will of the administrators of Mrs.
Compton
, and that the right to recover, if it exists at all, is in
them, it is a proceeding, the representatives of a ward, against
the executors of a guardian, to recover a legacy which had
been bequeathed the ward, and which the guardian in that ca-
pacity had received from the executors of the testator, by whom
the bequest was made.

It is a bill, then, in equity, by a ward against her guardian—
that is by a cestuique trust, against the trustee. The relation
of guardian and ward constituting, as Mr. Justice Story says,
the most important and delicate of trusts, and as this relation
and the rights and obligations which grow out of it, are pecu-
liarly within the jurisdiction of this court, its power to afford a
remedy for a breach of the trust cannot be denied, unless it can
be clearly shown tohave been taken away by some express stat-
utory enactment.

In the matter of Andrews., 1 Johns. Chan. Rep., 99, Chan-
cellor Kent says, that every guardian, however appointed, is re-
sponsible in equity for his conduct, and may be removed for
misbehavior, and that a testamentary, or statute guardian, is
as much under the superintendance of the Court of Chancery
as the guardian in socage.



 
clear space
clear space
white space