Furr v. . Brower

Rodman, J. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant was negligent in this : 1. That on the 2d of March, 1861, he sold the two slaves which he held as administrator of their father in trust for them. We attach no importance to the fact that the sale was made under an order of the County Court; such orders were almost of course on the petition of an administrator; nor to the fact that the plaintiffs, then infants, represented by their guardian appointed by the Court ad litem were co-petitioners with the administrator. In those days and perhaps now, guardians ad litem were the mere nominees of the administrator and gave no real protection to their wards. The suit was. but a form, and if the administrator so pleased, a form to cover a, fraud. There is however no appearance of any fraudulent purpose in this case. Supposing the sale to have been altogether the act of the administrator, it does not appear ,to have been imprudent, much less negligent or fraudulent. It was not inconsistent with a fair purpose and honest judgment to suppose it advisable even as early as March, 1861, to sell slaves. 2. That the administrator, some time before the 28th of April, 1863, collected the notes given for the slaves which fell due on the 2nd of September, 1861. Perhaps this unexplained might be considered a culpable imprudence. Tt would depend on the circumstances. At July Term, 1862, of Moore County Court, Richardson became guardian of plaintiffs, and shortly thereafter commenced a suit against the administrator for the fund in his hands. At April Term, 1863, he recovered a judgment, and on the '28th of April the administrator paid into Court the amount recovered (except a small sum retained for a special pur *411 pose by leave of the Court and afterwards paid) which the guardian received and receipted for. This suit explains and justifies the collection of the notes in confederate currency. It does not appear that the guardian offered to accept the notes. If his petition was in the usual form, he demanded payment of what was due in money, and thus compelled the administrator to collect in the only money which was then in circulation. This case differs from Purvis v. Jackson, 69 N. C., 474; in this: There, the plaintiff refused to ratify the act of the clerk in receiving confederate money, and immediately on being informed of it repudiated it. Here, the guardian of plaintiffs received the money without objection,and thereby ratified its receipt by the clerk. As to the sum retained to meet certain contingent costs, as it has been paid, it is unnecessary to say anything. "We concur in all respects with the Judge below. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed. .