Guardian Case

Have you ever found the full text of a court case in a newspaper? While searching for records involving the descendants of Elizabeth Ann Steele Combs Chandler, I found a case involving guardianship records for the estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased husband of Margaret Combs Boyes.

The 14 July 1904 issue of the Siskiyou Daily News devotes over 2 columns to the case concerning the final account of Jerome Churchill, Guardian. This article gives the death date of Charles B. Boyes, identifies his widow as Margaret Jane Boyes and lists the children.

• Alice Amelia Boyes
• Mattie Angeline Boyes
• Lutie Anson Boyes
• Charles Combs Boyes
• John Ethan BOyes
• Fannie Jane Boyes
• Damie Elizabeth Boyes
• Dora Marie Boyes

Thanks to the Sider: ChatGPT Sidebar Chrome Extension (See AI and Images), I was able to get a transcription of this article. Making sure this transcription was accurate required close reading. I did find that it skipped a line of text every so often. However, it was still faster to correct the transcription than to type out the entire case myself.

Siskiyou Daily News
14 Jul 1904
page 2

Decision by Judge Beard.
In the Superior Court of the County

In the matter of the Estate and Guardianship Minors.

First and Final Account of Jerome Churchill, Guardian.

Upon the hearing and settlement of said account Gillis \& Tapscott appeared for the guardian, and R. S. Taylor and J. H. Magoffey for the minors.

On February 13, 1904, the guardian of said minors filed his first and final separately, to each and all of them. The minor’s separately, filed written objections to the said account, as amended. Letters of guardianship were issued herein to Jerome Churchill, on July 10, 1890, at the request of Margaret Jane Boyes, the widow of Charles B. Boyes, and mother of the said minors. On March 11, 1891, the said guardian filed in the said court an inventory and appraisement, showing that there then was the credit of the said minors, in all, $ 8,960.00 or $ 1,120.00 to each of said minor’s separate estate. The said sum being the proceeds of a life insurance policy, secured by the said Charles B. Boyes upon his own life, on October 29, 1856, and which was on November 26, 1886 , by him assigned to said Margaret Jane Boyes and their said children. Charles B. Boyes died on or about January 27,1890, and on April 15,1890, letters of administration upon his estate were issued out of said court to Jerome Churchill and Margaret Jane Boyes, who ever since has been and now are the duly qualified and acting administrator and administratrix of said estate. On April 5, 1890, there came into the said estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased, as is shown by the inventory and appraisement therein filed, real and personal property of the total value of $ 51,651.85. The total indebtedness of the said estate as shown by the list claims presented and allowed, as per the administrators’ account filed June 8, 1893, was $ 31,036.43. This amount included the claim of the Siskiyou County Bank and that of J Churchill on promissory notes and accounts. So that at the time of Charles B. Boyes’ death his estate, independently of the $ 10,000.00 life insurance policy, was of the approximate value of $ 20,000.00 over and above ail indebtedness then existing against the same. On March 9, 1891, the said guardian loaned to the administrators of the estate of the estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased, his said ward’s insurance money, amounting to $ 8,960., and, at the same time, Margaret Jane Boyes loaned to said estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased, the sum of $ 620.00 of the amount she had received as her individual share of the said insurance money. In the guardian’s said accounts he charges himself with the accumulated interest on said sum of $ 8,960.00$ or on each of his said ward’s share on $ 1,120.00 at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, from July 15,1891 . This same rate of interest is credited by the said guardian in accounting with his said wards on the said principal sum, or the balance thereof due to each ward as shown by the said guardian’s accounts. No charges whatever are made in the guardian’s accounts against any of his said wards for their maintenance prior to July 15,1891 ; up to which time they were supported by the estate of Charles B. Boyes. Thereafter the guardian maintained said wards with the money arising from the interest annually accumulating from the money belonging to their separate estates, and when that was insufficient for such purpose, he used so much of the principal sum, from time to time, as was necessary for each ward’s individual support. So that on February 13, 1904, when said amended accounts were rendered, there was due and owing to the said wards, severally, as shown by the said accounts, the following amounts:

To Alice Amelia Boyes, $ 381.56; to Mattie Angeline Boyes, $ 905.53; to Lutie Anson Boyes, $37.70, and to Charles Combs Boyes, $30.04. And the following named wards are indebted to said guardian, as shown by said accounts, as follows: John Ethan Boyes in the sum of $ 260.28$; Fannie Jane Boyes in the sum of $ 39.01$; Damie Elizabeth Boyes in the sum of $ 109.41$, and Dora Marie Boyes in the sum of $ 173.19$

The above evidence shows that, with the exception of a few items of individual expenditure, the guardian did not, in fact, keep any separate accounts with his wards, but that each was charged with his or her proportionate share of the common indebtedness incurred in maintaining the entire family. “When a guardianship exists for more than one ward, the account of each should be stated and filed separately; and the final account of a guardian should be full and complete, embracing all the items of account.” (En. P. & P. Vol. 9, page 964-5 and notes.) The guardian must manage the estate of his ward frugally and without waste, and apply the income and

profits thereof, as far as may be necessary, for the comfortable and suitable maintenance of the ward –Section 1770 C. C. P. And “when a guardian has advanced for the necessary maintenance, support, or education of his ward, an amount not disproportionate to the value of his estate or his condition in life, and the same is made to appear to the satisfaction of the court, by proper vouchers and proofs, the guardian must be allowed credit therefor in his settlements.” (Sec 1771 C. C. P. Cal.) A guardian is liable only for willful default or gross negligence, and is allowed the exercise of reasonable discretion and prudential care in managing his ward’s property. (In Re Bryson’s Estate, 13 Lane. Bar, 45; Century Digest, Vol. 25, 399). But the burden of proof is on the guardian to show the correctness of expenditures. In the exercise of that discretion, if the guardian upon consulting with the mother of the children, deemed it for the best interests of his wards to keep the family together and provide for their common maintenance during their minority in that manner, then the law will hardly attribute default or gross negligence to the guardian in the management of his ward’s estate; particularly in the absence of proof that they could have been separately or collectively maintained for a less amount of money than is charged against them by the guardian in his accounts.

Another point made by the counsel for said wards is, that only transactions between the guardian and ward terminating at the expiration of the trust should be included in the account. One of the conditions of the guardian’s bond is that he will at the expiration of his trust settle his accounts with the court, or with the ward, if he be of full age, or his legal representatives.-Sec. 1754 , sub. div. 3, C.C.P.

When a ward attains the age of majority-which in California is twenty-one years for males and eighteen years for females-the office of guardian comes to an end, and it is then the duty of the guardian to exhibit a final account of his guardianship to a court of probate, make settlement, and deliver all the property in his hands to the ward.” In Re Allgier, 65 Cal. 228; Estate of Curtis, 121 Cal. 468; En. P. \& P. Vol. 9, pages 964-5.)
“Jurisdiction remains in the probate court, after the minor’s majority, over the estate in the hands of the guardian for the purposes of an accounting as to transactions during the minority of the ward, but not as to any occurring after the ward bas attained his majority-In Re Estate of Curtis, supra

“The superior court acting in probate for the settlement of the estate of a minor, proceeds in rem, and has only jurisdiction to settle the accounts of the guardian with respect to the ward’s estate received by him as guardian; and if, at the time the ward reaches his majority, there is no such estate left the court has no jurisdiction to settle the accounts of the guardian, and render judgment against the ward, for advances made by the guardian after the ward attained his majority, notwithstanding an agreement between them that the guardianship should continue, and that the advances should be made as guardian.” (Estate of Kincaid, $120 Cal 203). Advances made by Jerome Churchill to any of the said minors, if any, after they attained majority may, perhaps, be deducted from their distributive share in the settlement of the estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased, but cannot be settled in this proceeding-Id. 204. B
The counsel for the said minors make the further contention that “the duty of maintaining the family of Charles B. Boyes, which the law imposed upon the deceased husband and father in his lifetime, is continued against his estate pending its administration. The law provides that at any time during the administration, the court may, on its own motion, or on petition therefor set apart for the use of the surviving wife all the property exempt from execution. And the code further provides that if no homestead has been selected, designated and recorded, the court must select, designate, and set apart a homestead for the use of the surviving widow or minor children of the decedent.-Sec. $1465 C. P.

Section 1466 of the Code of Civil Procedure of this State additionally provides that “if the amount set apart be insufficient for the support of the widow and children, or either, the court or a judge thereof must make such reasonable allowance out of the estate as shall be necessary for the maintenance of the family, according to their circumstances, during the progress of the settlement of the estate, which in case of an insolvent estate, must not be longer than one year after granting letters testamentary or of administration.”
In Re Lux, 100 Cal. 603, the supreme court of this State held that the provisions of said section 1466 C. C.P. are express and mandatory, regardless of the widow’s financial ability to support herself without aid from the estate. The same rule must necessarily apply to the minor children. And where the estate is solvent, the order of allowance made by the court to the widow and children out of the estate of the deceased husband and father should embrace the entire period of the settlement of the estate. See, also, In Re Lux, 114 Cal. 77.
“In the matter of payment of family allowance an executor or administrator is not required to wait for an order of the court, but may make the necessary expenditures and the court should allow him credit for the payment of such sums.” Id.
The true rule seems to be, that where the estate of a deceased husband and father is solvent, the widow and minor children, as a matter of legal right, are entitled to such reasonable allowance out of the estate as may be necessary for their maintenance during the progress of the settlement of the estate. And that their private estate cannot be encroached upon by the guardian for their maintenance, unless it be shown that the estate of the husband and father is,

in fact, insolvent. Thus far the estate of Charles B. Boyes remains in progress of settlement. According to the Third Account and Report of the administrators of said estate, filed November 26, 1902 , the net value of the said estate, exclusive of the uncollected portion of the Los Angeles property, was $ 9,843.02. This amount would be very materially diminished if the estate were charged up with the full amount of the indebtedness due to the estate of said minors. Without further showing as to the present condition and value of the estate of Charles B. Boyes, deceased, the court cannot settle the guardian’s account as rendered. In view of the situation, the court will make such other and further order and orders herein as the law and facts warrant in the premises and the rights of the parties demand.
J. S. BEARD, Judge.