Guardianship of Hayden

COOPER, C.

This is an appeal from an order allowing the first account of the guardian in the above-entitled matter. The appeal is by F. H. Collins, a contestant, who claims to be an interested party.

One of the main objections relied upon was that the court had no jurisdiction, for the reason that one year had not elapsed from the date of the appointment of the guardian.

There is no merit in the objection. The guardian is subject to the supervision of the court, and must render his account as guardian for examination and approval. The usual complaint

[75]

is that these accounts are not rendered often enough, and not that they are too frequent. Section 1774 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the guardian must, upon the expiration of a year from the time of his appointment, and as often thereafter as he may be required, present his account to the court for settlement and allowance. The section while making it the duty of the guardian to file his account upon the expiration of the year does not prohibit him from filing and presenting it sooner. We will not presume that he will file his accounts so frequently as to incur needless expense and annoy the court. If such case should occur, the court will protect itself. Several errors are assigned as to rulings on the admissibility of evidence, which do not require special notice. We have examined them and find no error that would justify a reversal of the order. The questions relate principally to an agreement made by Collins, the contestant, to support the ward during the remainder of his life, in consideration of the conveyance of the reversion of certain real estate after the death of the ward. The existence of such an agreement, the fact as to whether or not Collins performed it, and the consideration for the conveyance to Collins, were matters that might have been for determination in other suits under proper issues; but in this case the ward was an old lady, paralyzed, helpless, and needing the care of a nurse at all times. She had plenty of property to support her; in fact, the income appears to have been sufficient for such purpose. In such case it was the duty of the guardian and of the court to see that she had all the necessary comforts that could be supplied to her in her last days, even if it had taken the principal for such purpose. The court should not have allowed her to be deprived of suitable, food, nursing, and medical attendance in order that the estate left might be larger, or that some distant relative might be benefited. If she was not cared for by Collins, and the guardian gave her such care, his account will not be disallowed because Collins had made an agreement to care for her. In this case the amount expended for board, medicine, nursing, and medical attendance, including a considerable amount paid out in litigation in her behalf against Collins from March 10, 1903, to September 10, 1903, was only $1,028.57, being only $35.26 more than the income of the estate during the same period. It certainly does not seem, on its face, to have been