You are on page 1of 2

27 U.S.

243
2 Pet. 243
7 L.Ed. 411

JOHN T. RITCHIE, APPELLANT


v.
PHILIP MAURO AND JOSEPH FORREST, APPELLEES.
January Term, 1829

THIS was an appeal from the circuit court of the county of Washington;
in which court the proceedings of the orphans' court of that county,
appointing a guardian to the estate of a minor, had been reversed on
appeal, and the court had proceeded to pass such a decree as it adjudged
the orphans' court should have passed. From this decree of the circuit
court, the appellant came before this Court, and he sought to sustain the
decision of the orphans' court.
The appellant, under an order of the orphans' court, had been appointed
the guardian of John W. Ott; and had, in pursuance of the same order,
entered into a bond, as guardian of the said John W. Ott, in the penal sum
of $10,000, with sureties.
The case was argued upon the whole of the matter contained in the
decree, by Mr C. C. Lee and Mr Chambers, for the appellant; and by Mr
Bradley for the appellees. As the Court did not decide but upon one of the
points in the case presented by the counsel, the arguments upon the others
are omitted.
An objection was made by the counsel of the appellees, that the amount in
controversy was not sufficient to authorise an appeal from the circuit court
of Washington county to this Court. The whole question to be decided on
this appeal was, whether the appellant of the appellees were legally
entitled to the guardianship of the person and estate of John W. Ott, a
minor; whose estate, it was admitted, was of considerable value. It was
also admitted, that neither the appellant nor the appellees had any interest
in the estate, except that which would be obtained from the compensation
they might derive for their labours and responsibilities, as guardians of the
minor.

The counsel for the appellant contended, that the right of appeal was
complete, as the property which would come into the hands of the
guardian exceeded two thousand dollars; and the bond given by him, by
order of the orphans' court, was in the sum of ten thousand dollars.
The law is well settled, that a trustee may appeal when the property under
his charge is of sufficient amount, although he has no interest whatever in
the trust estate. A guardian is a trustee, and should be considered in the
same relations to the property of his ward.
Mr Bradley, for the appellees, submitted the question of the right of
appeal to the Court, presenting only the suggestion that the pecuniary
benefit of the appellant from the estate, could not, under any
circumstances, amount to one thousand dollars. Whatever claims on the
estate of his ward the appellant might have, for services to be rendered
hereafter; in the state of things at the time of the appeal, as he had never
acted as guardian, he had no pecuniary claims whatsoever.
Mr Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the present case, a majority of the Court are of opinion that this Court has no
jurisdiction in the case; the value in controversy not being sufficient to entitle
the party by law to claim an appeal. The value is not the value of the minor's
estate, but the value of the office of guardian. The present is a controversy
merely between persons claiming adversely as guardians, having no distinct
interest of their own. The office of guardian is of no value; except so far as it
affords a compensation for labour and services thereafter to be earned.

You might also like