TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dixon's Estate

Dixon's Estate, 9 Pa. D. & C. 79 (1927)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Schuylkill County · State Trial Courts
Decided
January 31, 1927
Judges
Wilhelm
Citations
9 Pa. D. & C. 791927 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 13

Opinion of the Court — Wilhelm

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

Wilhelm, P. J.,

This is the petition of George W. Yeager, guardian of Albert G. Dixon, a minor, nine years of age, for his discharge as guardian of said minor.

The petition states that there is attached thereto a just and true account of the guardian’s administration of the estate of his ward. There is attached to the petition an account, which is designated “The first and final account of George W. Yeager, Guardian of Albert G. Dixon.”

There appears to be no authority for the filing of an account of a minor with the Orphans’ Court. The proper place to file an account is in the register’s office, and in due course it comes before the court for audit. No reason has been given in this case for deviating from that well established practice, and no law has been pointed out which authorizes the filing of the account of a guardian with the court.

*80 This proceeding appears to be an attempted short-cut to accomplish a purpose, but its weakness lies in the fact that the well known rules of practice do not permit it. It is not good practice to discharge a guardian who has been duly appointed simply because he desires to be relieved of the responsibilities of his office, and securing the discharge of a guardian may not be accomplished in the simple manner here proposed, and, as stated in this petition, because the guardian is unable to invest the funds of his minor in trust securities.

If it is true, as suggested in the petition, that the bond of the guardian is not sufficient in amount to properly safeguard the interests of the minor, a rule may be issued upon petition requiring him to file additional security, and if he fails, upon order, to file additional security, his discharge would follow as a matter of course, and upon hisi discharge a new guardian should be appointed, and in this manner the interests of the ward would be safeguarded and the rules of practice not violated.

The petition is dismissed, at the costs of the petitioner.

From M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.

How later courts describe this case

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

1996: 119962026peak 1996 · 1

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