of the preceding guardian, Mohler, hav- | in a position to prevent the confirmaing been confirmed, the succeeding tion of Mohler's fraudful statement guardian, Keller, can not be surcharged put in the form of an account. Mohby reason of his predecessor's specula- ler suffered no inconvenience by reations, and emphatically it is asserted that son of Keller following him as guarit can not be done before there has been dian, and when Keller came to file his a review of the Mohler account. If it account Mohler stood by him. He went was attempted to surcharge Mohler, the with him to his counsel's office when it argument might have some weight, but was prepared and was with him there hardly does it raise a barrier behind when he refused to sign the petition and which Keller can hide, especially as the shirked the audit. He joined him in acts of both guardians were permeated his efforts to induce his ward to give a and vitiated by fraud. It was not at release and accept what was offered. tempted to impeach the decree confirm- Both of them pursued this unfortunate ing Mohler's account, but to impeach young woman and pestered her for a Keller for allowing such a decree. What release. It seems that her sister, who Mohler did was not the thought, but had been their ward, and who earlier what Keller did-more particularly, became of age, was settled with in a way what he did not do. The decree was agreeable to the guardian, and she gave called to the attention of the Court not him a release. They seem to pin their to be collaterally attacked, but as a set- faith to a release, apparently regarding ting to give a proper perspective for Kel- it a panacea for all the crookedness of ler. He charged himself with the whole which guardians may be guilty. balance exhibited by the Mohler account and other moneys, but he could have and should have charged himself with more. Mary E. Shirk is his niece. It is a fair inference that he was familiar with her circumstances. There can be no doubt that he knew of her means of support and that she was in no way depending upon her guardian, also that Mohler had received for her estate six dollars ability by reason of a predecessor's culmonth for seven years and ten dollars a month thereafter and that by his accounts he showed a balance of only $136.80. Having these facts, his duty was clear and imperative.

The depositions taken on this rule throw additional light on his acts. These uncles, Mohler and Keller, were companions and complotters. Long before Mohler filed his account preparatory to asking to be discharged as guardian, it was arranged between them that Keller should succeed him. The petition for his appointment was sent to Mary E. Shirk for her signature accompanied by a letter which concludes, "By order of your uncle, C. B. Mohler ", more than four months before the discharge was granted and the appointment asked. Keller was early informed of the responsibilities he was about to assume and for a month after his appointment he was

But notwithstanding on the merits of the case the conclusion reached appears to be right, it must be conceded that the short way taken to it was technically irregular, but not necessarily wrong. If such was the practice a succeeding guardian might suffer great injustice, for, however negligent he may have been, it would be dangerous to fix a responsi

pability without first having had a review of his account. Ordinarily an accountant is not expected to come into court prepared to meet charges against his predecessor, and especially so if his acts have had the sanction of the court by a decree confirming his account; but this is not an ordinary case, and the petitioner was not exempt from answering for his predecessor's fraudulent acts at which, at least, he connived, and in effect he admitted all claims and pleaded guilty to all complaints by deliberately and contrary to the advice of his counsel refusing his signature to the formal petition. and fleeing from the charges against him. in the exceptions to his account.

The facts found were from the uncontradicted and unobjected-to proofs offered, and which have been supported by the testimony of both Mohler and Keller, who substantially admit the find

ings to be correct, and thus practically | pany was planned, and application for effect a review of Mohler's account.

The question before the Court now is, have there been sufficient reasons advanced, legal or equitable, to influence its discretion in favor of the petitioner, and to which a negative answer is given. That symbol of patriotism and expression of a nation's gratitude, the pension, was the patrimony of the dead soldier's child, and this pair of guardianuncles seem to have conspired to appropriate it. They are entitled to that consideration which is extended by a beneficent and merciful criminal court.

The rule is dismissed. Costs to be paid by the petitioner.

Legal Miscellany.

a license was made, whereupon the commissioner held that under the law he could not issue a license to any insurance company for the conduct of this business, which he claimed was not insurance. On the other hand in one of the southern states the head of a chain of banks caused a hypothetical question to be presented to the insurance commissioner which brought forth the ruling that the guaranteeing of bank deposits was decidedly insurance, and that any organization attempting to conduct a business of this character would be subject to the insurance laws. In another state the matter was carried to the courts with the result that the guaranteeing of bank deposits was declared to be illegal and against public policy in that it encouraged loose business methods. Such also is the opinion of many prominent bankers. In the literature of two proposed southern casualty companies bank deposits are mentioned as one of the lines of insurance which will be written, and in both cases those in charge state that it is doubtful if any attempt will ever be made to write this class of business, and that it was included in the list of casualty and surety lines merely to fill out the list and not with any serious idea of engaging in a business about which so little is known and in connection with which there is no experience upon which rates can be based.

Guaranteeing Bank Deposits. The guaranteeing of bank deposits in the State of Oklahoma is admittedly a failure. A law was enacted some time ago whereby all state banks paid an assessment and a state fund was created which was supposed to be sufficient to make good all shortage to depositors in event of the failure of any state bank. One of the first effects of this law was to practically drive out all national banks, as well as to inspire the organization of a large number of small banks, conducted by men of little or no banking experience. Matters went along fairly well for a time until the largest bank in-Insurance Herald. Oklahoma City became financially involved, and this guarantee fund was found to be woefully deficient. A peculiar coincidence in connection with this was that some sixty thousand dollars of the state's guarantee fund was deposited in this bank, and the other banks have fought against an additional assessment to make up the amount needed. Since then the stockholders of the de- Bekase mah pooh family wuz starvfunct bank have been called upon to in', yo' Honoh," whimpered the old man. pay the full legal assessment of double Family starving!" cried the judge,. the amount of their holdings. In con-"but they told me you kept five dogs. nection with this it is interesting to note How is that, uncle?" that the insurance commissioners of a number of states have made contrary rulings in regard to the guaranteeing of bank deposits. In Kansas a com

How It Was.

Against an old Georgia negro charged with stealing a pig, the evidence was absolutely conclusive, and the judge, who knew the old darkey well, said, reproachfully:

Now, uncle, why did you steal that

pig?"

66

66

46

"Why, yo' Honoh," said uncle, reprovingly, family to eat dem dogs."

you wouldn't 'spect mah

-Harper's Monthly.

The claimant, though a married wo

LANCASTER LAW REVIEW. man, was entitled to recover in her own

tion.

The court below (SMITH, P. J.) in the adjudication refused to allow a claim by Sallie Boose for $300 for nursing and caring for the decedent for about three years prior to his death, on the ground that it was barred by an agreement between the claimant's husband and the decedent.

On exceptions being filed by the claimant specifying the disallowance of the claim and quoting parts of the adjudication, the same were dismissed by the court (see 25 LAW REVIEW, 412), and the claimant then took this appeal assigning for error (1 to 5) the action of the court below in dismissing the five exceptions (quoting them).

B. F. Davis, for appellant. The claimant admittedly performed the services and she was not paid.

She was not a domestic servant and no presumption of payment would arise. Wynings vs. Hurst, 17 Super., 318. Ranninger's Appeal, 156 Pa., 337.

name for her services.

Rhodes Appeal (Lewis' Estate), 156 Pa., 337.

29.

Schmeltzer vs. Traction Co., 218 Pa.,

Frost vs. Knapp, 10 Super., 296.

The claimant was not a party to the agreement or lease and had nothing whatever to do with it. It could not therefore bar her recovery.

An agreement in a lease for one year is not carried into the second year by implication of the law.

Hughes vs. Lillibridge, 8 Dist. Rep.,

358.

Appel & Appel, for appellee.

Under his agreement the decedent was entitled to care in time of sickness and his executor settled in full with claimant's husband.

The services embraced in the contract were such as would be performed as a matter of course by the lessee's wife, and any services rendered by her were on behalf of her husband. Her services

established no contractual relation with the decedent.

Normile vs. Osborne, 207 Pa., 367. As well might it be said that she should be independently liable for rent for living in the house.

There was no demand for compensa

tion ever shown to have been made by

renewed on the same terms for another year. At the end of the second year, a settlement in full was again made and the agreement was renewed for another year on the same terms. On March 7, 1907, Joseph Eaby died, leaving a will appointing Jason K. Eaby the executor, and he made a final settlement with Mr. Boose which was in writing and dated March 27, 1907. At that settlement it was found that a balance was due Boose of $68.75 which was paid in full by a check.

Joseph Eaby, of the village of Inter- the end of that year a settlement was course, Pa., of the one Part, and John | made with Boose and the agreement was Boose, now of Monterey, Pa., of the other part, Witnesseth that the said Joseph Eaby doth by these presen.s Lease and Let unto the said John Boose, for the term of one year, from the first day of March, A. D. 1904, all that sertain Dwelling House, stable, etc., and lot containing about one-half acre of land, being the premises now occupied by himself, Joseph Eaby, To have and hold the premises aforesaid unto the said Lessee, from the first day of March, 1904, for the term of one year thence next ensuing; and yielding and paying for the same unto the said Lessor, his heirs or assigns, the rent or sum of Forty ($40) dollars. The Lessee agrees to keep all fences and out-buildings in good repair, the Lessor to furnish any material required for such repairs. The said Lessee to find the Fed, etc., for his cow, for the use of her, until he may see proper to sell her.

It is agreed between the parties hereto, that the Lessor shall board with the Lessee, he paying the sum of Fifteen Dollars per Month, for same, including his washing, mending, cleaning his rooms, attending his stove, and caring for him in time of sickness, the said lessor reserves his sitting room and sleeping room in South side of Building, the Lessor furnishing his own rooms with furniture, stove, etc., necessary, and finding his, the coal to be used in his

rooms.

It is understood, that the said premises shall not be underlet or rented, without the Lessor's written consent to the transfer of this Lease or such underlet

ting. On the expiration of this Lease, the property is to be given up in as good order, in all respects as it now is, reasonable wear and tear and damage from fire excepted.

In Witness whereof, the parties have

hereunto set their hands and seals.
(Signed)

JOSEPH EABY (L. S.)
JOHN BOOSE (L. S.)

Witness present:
JASON K. EABY.

The contract was for one year and at

It appears that John Boose and his wife, the appellant, moved into the premises mentioned in the above contract and continued therein and complied with its terms until the death of Joseph Eaby. It further appears that the terms of the contract were fully performed on the part of Joseph Eaby. It must be presumed that Sallie Boose knew of this contract and knew that she and her husband were occupying Eaby's premises as tenants, paying rent, and that by the plain terms of the contract, Boose and wife were bound to take care of Eaby in sickness and in health and to board. him.

It is quite apparent from the record that no thought could ever have entered the mind of Joseph Eaby that any claim by these people could arise outside of said contract. In our opinion, the appellant's claim has, under the facts and in law and justice, no merits whatever. In view of the authorities below cited it is difficult for us to understand how anybody could have reached the conclusion that this appellant was entitled to extra compensation for the boarding and care of Joseph Eaby: Cummiskey's Est., 224 Pa., 509: Rosencrance vs. Johnson, 191 Pa., 520; Moore's Est., 12 Pa. Superior Ct., 599; Howard vs. Drexler, 14 Pa. Superior Ct., 59: Piersol's Est., 27 Pa. Superior Ct., 204; Normile, App., vs. Osborne, 207 Pa., 367; Grossman vs. Thunder, 212 Pa., 274.

In Lewis' Estate, Rhode's App., 156 Pa.. 337, relied upon by appellant, there was no contract with the husband and no claim made by him for washing, care