MASON v. EVANS

MASON v. EVANS
1915 OK 935
153 P. 133
52 Okla. 484
Case Number: 5724
Decided: 11/16/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

MASON
v.
EVANS.

Syllabus

¶0 1. GUARDIAN AND WARD--Power of Guardian--Collection of Note--Release of Mortgage--Order of the Court. A guardian who has loaned the money of a ward, evidenced by a promissory note payable to himself as guardian, has power to collect the same, and, if such note is secured by mortgage, to release and discharge the mortgage, without the intervention of the county court.
2. SAME--Accepting payment of Note--"Compounding of Debt"--Approval by Judge. Where the guardian accepts in satisfaction of such note the full amount, principal and interest, for which the makers were then obligated, at time prior to the maturity thereof according to its tenor, such act on the part of the guardian does not constitute a compounding of the debt within the meaning of section 6543, Rev. Laws 1910, nor is the approval thereof by the county judge requisite (following Mason, Guardian, v. Ackley et al., 52 Okla. 157, 152 P. 846).

Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. P. de Graffenried, Judge.

Action by A. J. Mason, guardian of Louisa Murrell, against S. L. Evans. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. C. Franklin, P. J. Carey, and W. O. Rittenhouse, for plaintiff in error
William S. Cochran, for defendant in error

DUDLEY, C.

¶1 On August 26, 1911, plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, commenced this action in the district court of Muskogee county against the defendant in error, defendant below, upon a promissory note and to foreclose a real estate mortgage given to secure the same. There was judgment for the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed.

¶2 The principles of law involved in this case were determined adversely to plaintiff's contention by this court, in an opinion handed down by Bleakmore, C., on November 2, 1915, in the case of A. J. Mason, Guardian of Louisa Murrell, a Minor, v. Levi Ackley and Mary Ackley et al., 52 Okla. 157, 152 P. 846. The facts in the two cases are identical, and the principles of law involved are the same.

¶3 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, on the authority of the above case.

¶4 By the Court: It is so ordered.