McGEARY v. McGEARY

Guardian. Interest. A father who is the guardian of his minor child, and who is not of sufficient pecuniary ability to support the child suitably, should be allowed a reasonable charge for the support of the child in the settlement of his account as guardian. Whether the father intended to charge the son for his support and whether the circumstances of both justified such charges are questions of fact which on appeal will be presumed to have been decided rightly, unless facts appear which clearly show the contrary.

Where a guardian was held to be chargeable with money of his ward lent and lost, the ward asked that the guardian should be charged with compound interest on the sums so lost. Held, that, although a guardian is chargeable with interest which he should have collected, no change in the amount allowed as interest would be made in a case where, upon the agreed facts, it did not appear that the allowance made was not a proper adjustment of all matters of interest which should have entered into the account.

BARKER, J.

A father who is guardian of his minor child should be allowed for the support of the latter in settlement of his guardian's account if the father was not of sufficient ability pecuniarily to support the child in the way in which he should be brought up. Dawes v. Howard, 4 Mass. 97. Strong v. Moe, 8 Allen, 125. See also Melanefy v. O'Driscoll, 164 Mass. 422. Whether such an allowance should be made in the present case was a question of fact a finding upon which in favor of the accountant is implied in the decision appealed from. That decision will not be changed here unless clearly shown to have been erroneous. It does not appear that the father kept no accounts with the son. Whether the father intended to charge the son for his support and whether the circumstances of both justified such charges are questions as to which the record does not give us sufficient light to determine that the decision in favor of the guardian was wrong.

The account as settled by the decree appealed from in effect charges the guardian with the amount of the ward's property lent and so lost. The appellant now contends that the guardian should be charged with compound interest on the amount of the sum so lent and lost. There is no doubt that a guardian is chargeable with interest which he should have collected. Forbes v. Ware, 172 Mass. 306. But it does not appear from the agreed facts but that the allowance made for interest was a proper adjustment of all matters of interest which should have entered into the account.

Decree affirmed.