TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wiser v. Blachly

Wiser, an infant, &c., against Blachly, and the Executors of Vail

Wiser v. Blachly, 1 Johns. Ch. 607 (1815)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Chancery · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1815
Citations
1 Johns. Ch. 607
Headnotes
Where a replication is filed, and a cause set down for hearing, without any rule having been entered to produce witnesses, it is a waiver of a replication ; and the defendants are entitled to the benefit of their answers, as if the cause had been set down on bill and answer. Where a bond, given by a surety for the guardian of an infant, was taken by the surrogate in the name of the people, instead of the infant, the court corrected the mistake, and considered the bond as of equal validity as if taken in the name of the infant. Where the intention is manifest, this court will always relieve against mistakes in agreements, and that as well in the case of a surety as in any other case.
Summary
THIS cause coming on to a hearing, H. BleecJcer, for the defendants, objected to the hearing, on the ground, that to the answers of the executors replications had been filed, and that no rule had been entered to produce witnesses.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Chancellor.

There must be a reference to the master, to take an account of the property which it is admitted, or proved, has come to the possession of the guardian; and, under the allegations contained in the case, it will be proper for the master to inquire, also, into the fitness and competency of the guardian to continue in his trust. Perhaps it will be premature to take an account of the assets in the hands of the executors of the surety, until the default ofthe principal, and his inability to pay, are first ascertained. But as to the main point in the case, whether the surety is to be holden, though the bond was taken in the name of the people instead of the name of the infant,T have no difficulty in saying, that it is within the ordinary jurisdiction of this court to correct such a mistake, by holding the party according to his original intention, and to consider the bond as taken to the infant. Where the intention is manifest, this court will always relieve against mistakes in agreements. (2 Atk. 203. 1 Ves. 317.) The case cited from Prec. ire Chancery shows, that the court will do it in the case of a surety. Here it is admitted in the answer, and the bond itself is conclusive proof that Vail intended to bind himself as security for Blachly, the guardian; and, whether the bond was taken in the name of the infant, or in the name of the people, in trust for the infant, it is but matter of form and *610 not of substance ; it would be intolerable that such a mistake should prejudice or destroy the rights of the infant.

I shall, accordingly, decree, that the bond, executed by the surety, is to be valid as a security to the like extent as if it had been taken by the surrogate according to-the act; that the guardian shall account with the plaintiff for the moneys, -estate, and effects of the plaintiff, which have come to his hands as guardian; that it be referred to a master to take the account, and also to inquire and ascertain whether B., the guardian, be able to pay what maybe found due, and whether he has taken due care of the plaintiff and her estate ; and whether he be a suitable person to continue guardian ; and that the question of costs, and all other questions,, be, in the mean time, reserved.

Decree accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1822–1823: 11836–1837: 11840–1841: 11848–1849: 11850–1851: 11866–1867: 11880–1881: 21882–1883: 11884–1885: 11888–1889: 11892–1893: 21906–1907: 11910–1911: 21914–1915: 11916–1917: 118222026peak 1880 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bernards Township v. Stebbins109 U.S. 341 (1883)
  2. United States v. Price50 U.S. (9 How.) 83 (1850)
  3. Town of Solon v. Williamsburgh Savings Bank21 N.E. 168 (N.Y. 1889)
  4. Ewing v. Wilson31 N.E. 64 (Ind. 1892)
  5. Gerould v. Wilson81 N.Y. 573 (1880)
  6. Stilwell v. Mills19 Johns. 304 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1822)

Most recent

  1. J. P. Duffy Co. v. Todebush173 A.D. 205 (1916)
  2. Luchs v. Christman42 App. D.C. 326 (1914)
  3. State v. Graver80 A. 891 (Md. 1911)
  4. State ex rel. Gaver v. Gaver115 Md. 250 (1911)
  5. Tully v. Lewitz50 Misc. 350 (1906)
  6. Vaill v. Town Council28 A. 344 (R.I. 1893)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list