[Cockrell et al. v. Coleman's Adm'r.] expenses of the litigation are out of proportion with the value of the property. 4. We cannot say that the court erred in overruling the objections to a confirmation of the sale of the register. Although the property brought only three dollars an acre, and most of the persons whose affidavits were produced thought it worth twice as much, no guaranty was offered that, upon a re-sale, it should fetch a higher price than was obtained. For the errors hereinbefore indicated, so much of the main decree of the chancellor on the merits of this cause, as charges defendants, or any of them, with the rents they respectively received for the dower-land in controversy, before this suit was brought, and so much of said decree as charges defendants, or any of them, with any part of the purchasemoney of the Mississippi lands, and so much of said decree as charges any of the sums of money so received for said rents and purchase-money upon the proceeds of the sale of said dower-lands, or of the portions of defendants, or any of them, and all and every part of said decree, and of the reports, confirmations, and orders in the Chancery Court relating to, and intending to carry into effect said decree, are reversed and annulled, except so much and such part of said decree as orders a sale of the said dower-land, and the reports of the register or master concerning such sale, and the orders confirming the same,-which part of said decree, reports, and orders of confirmation are affirmed. And this court, proceeding to make the further orders in this cause that ought to have been made by the chancellor, doth further direct and decree that, after deducting from the gross proceeds of the sale of said dower-land one-half of the costs of the bill and answers in this cause, but not of the exhibits to the bill, and all the costs of the decree of sale of the dowerland, and of executing the same, including advertising and auctioneer's fees,-one-fourth of the residue of said proceeds or price, and one-fourth of all the rents for said dower-land that have been collected or received therefor by all and any of the officers, receivers, or other agents of the Chancery Court, or by complainant in this cause, whether from proceeds of cotton or otherwise, and one-fourth of all the interest that has accrued on said residue of the proceeds and on said rent moneys, be paid to each of the three defendants, Mrs. Parmela Cockrell, Charles C. Coleman, and Edward C. Pearson, and that the other fourth thereof be paid to or retained by complainant as administrator of John R. Coleman's estate; and that said complainant pay all the costs of this cause in this court, and all the costs in said Chancery Court of Greene county, except so much of the latter as are to be paid, as [Lee v. Lee.] above ordered, out of the price of the dower-land, with leave to charge them against the estate of John R. Coleman. And it is further ordered, that this cause be remanded to said Chancery Court, that these orders of this court may be therein carried into effect. 55 590 94 327 55 590 129 642 55 590 131 614 Lee v. Lee. Bill in Equity for Settlement of Guardian's Accounts. 1. Jurisdiction of equity over infants and their guardians. --The Chancery Court here, as in England, is the general guardian of all intants within its territorial jurisdiction, and has original, inherent jurisdiction to appoint guardians for them, and to remove their guardians, no matter how or by whom appointed, whenever the interest of the infant requires such removal; and this jurisdiction is not affected by the statutory jurisdiction which has been conferred on the Probate Courts. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the court proceeds upon the theory that guardianship is a trust, and intervenes to protect the interests of the infant, by way of preventive as well as remedial justice- where a loss or injury is threatened, as well as where it has been consummated. 2. Jurisdiction of equity, as affected by statutory jurisdiction conferred on other courts. It is a very general principle, which has been often announced and acted on by this court, that the original jurisdiction of courts of equity is not affected by statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on other courts, unless the statute contains express words of exclusion, or manifests a clear intention that it shall so operate; but, in such cases, the jurisdiction of equity is concurrent with that of the court on which the statutory jurisdiction is conferred, and if the latter first acquires jurisdiction of any particular case, some special equity must be shown to justify the interposition of the former. ́3. ~ Duty and liability of guardian in lending out ward's money.—It is the statutory duty of a guardian (Rev. Code, § 2426), as it was his duty in the absence of any statute, to lend out the moneys of his ward, and to require good security in making loans; and for moneys loaned without security, or on security which he knows, or has good reason to believe, is insufficient, he is an insurer against loss, and is absolutely liable, without regard to the credit or solvency of the borrower at the time of the loan. 4. When infunt may come into equity, against guardian and his sureties.—If letters of guardianship on the estate of several infants are procured from the Probate Court, under an agreement between the guardian and his sureties on his official boud that he will lend the infants' moneys, without security, to a corporation of which the sureties are officers, and which is at that time greatly embarrassed in its pecuniary affairs; and, pursuant to this agreement, the moneys are thus loaned to the corporation, which soon afterwards becomes insolvent, its assets being placed in the hands of a receiver; a bill may be filed in the name and for the benefit of the infants, against the guardian and his sureties, to compel an account, and the payment of the money into court, although it is not shown that the guardian's bond is insufficient; and under such a bill, the court may compel the guardian to account, require the pay ment of the money into court, appoint a receiver or guardian to take charge of it, under the supervision of the court, investing or lending it out, and applying the income to the maintenance and education of the infants. 5. Multifariousness.-A bill in equity, filed by several infants against their guardian, to compel an account and settlement, and the payment of the money [Lee v. Lee.] into court, is not multifarious, because it joins as defendants the sureties on two different official bonds, given by the guardian on two successive appointments by the same court. If, on the resignation and settlement of the guardian under his first appointment, his re-appointment on the same day, and the execution of a new bond, the liability of the sureties on the first bond was discharged, the bill shows no cause of equitable relief against them, and, therefore, is not multifarious; and if, on the other hand, it alleges that the resignation, settlement and re-appointment were fictitious and collusive-being effected for the purpose of procuring the discharge of one of the sureties on the first bond, who had actively participated in procuring from the guardian, without security, a loan of the infants' money to an insolvent corporation, of which some of the sureties were officers; and for the further purpose of enabling such corporation to still retain the money without security-it shows a case for equitable relief against all the sureties, and all are properly joined as defendants. 6. Judgments and decrees; how affected by fraud and collusion.--It is an indispensable element in the validity of every judicial proceeding, that it should be free from collusion: a judgment or decree, obtained by fraud, cannot avail anything, for or against the parties affected by it, either in the prosecution of a claim, or the defense of a right. APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Perry. Heard before the Hon. CHARLES TURNER. The bill in this case was filed on the 22d December, 1875, by John Lee, Edgar Lee, and Mary Lee, the two latter being infants, and suing by the said John Lee as their next friend, against their guardian, John H. Lee, and the several sureties on his official bonds as such guardian, to-wit: F. A. Bates, W. B. Modawell, J. H. Speed, J. W. Crenshaw, A. B. Lane, W. M. Brooks, W. C. Wyatt, Harriet Johnston, W. R. Brown, A. M. Fowlkes, Carlos Reese, J. B. Cocke, and Amzi Godden; and sought a settlement of the guardian's accounts, and the payment into court of the money found due to the complainants on the statement of the account. The complainants, together with David Lee, an infant of tender years, who died on the 13th November, 1872, were the only children and heirs-at-law of John Lee, late of Perry county, who there died, intestate, during the year 1870, being possessed of a large estate, real and personal; and letters of administration on his estate were duly granted, soon after his death, to Porter King. On the 27th February, 1872, letters of guardianship on the estate of the said four children were granted by the Probate Court of Perry to John H. Lee, one of the defendants; and he thereupon gave bond as such guardian, in the penal sum of one hundred thousand dollars, with the defendants, F. A. Bates, W. B. Modawell, J. W. Crenshaw, J. H. Speed, A. B. Lane, W. C. Wyatt, and W. M. Brooks, as his sureties. On the 5th March, 1872, the said guardian received from the administrator of John Lee's estate the sum of $7,008 in gold, and $23,792 in currency, belonging to the estates of his said wards; and on the 25th January, 1873, he returned an inventory to the court, under oath, acknowl [Lee v. Lee.] edging his receipt of these moneys on that day. On the 28th January, 1873, he filed with the court his accounts and vouchers for a final settlement of his guardianship, showing the following balances in his hands, due to his wards: To John Lee, $1,844.86 in gold, and $4,958.09 in currency; to David Lee, then deceased, $1,844.86 in gold, and $5,319.35 in currency; to Mary Lee, the same amount in gold, and $4,287.48 in currency: and to Edgar Lee, the same amount in gold, and $5,652.45 in currency. The court thereupon appointed the 5th March following as the day for the settlement, and ordered three weeks' notice of it to be given. On the 5th March, 1873, the court appointed T. A. Givhan as guardian ad litem of the infants, and he accepted the appointment in writing, certifying on the accounts as filed that he had examined them, and found them correct, and consented that they be allowed as stated; and the court thereupon allowed the accounts as stated, and rendered decrees against the guardian, in favor of each of the complainants, for the amounts shown to be due to each of them respectively, including the amount found due to the estate of David Lee. The decree further recites that the guardian has resigned, accepts his resignation, and orders that he be discharged from the further performance of his duties. On the same day, the said John H. Lee again applied for letters of guardianship on the complainants' estates, and letters were again granted to him; and he thereupon gave another bond, which was accepted by the court, in the penal sum of $60,000, with F. A. Bates, W. C. Wyatt, W. R. Brown, A. B. Lane, W. M. Brooks, W. B. Modawell, J. H. Speed, A. M. Fowlkes, Carlos Reese, J. B. Cocke, Amzi Godden, and Mrs. Harriet Lee the complainants' mother, who afterwards married again, and was made a defendant to the bill by the name of Harriet Johnston), as his sureties. On the 9th April, 1873, the guardian filed in said court, as an inventory of his wards' estates, a statement, under oath, that he had collected from the Perry Insurance and Trust Company the sum of $7,370.44 in gold, and the further sum of $20,217.17 in currency, being the aggregate amount of the said decrees rendered against him on the 5th March, as above stated, and had again loaned the same to said company for twelve months, at eight per cent. interest, taking the note of the company, with W. B. Modawell and W. R. Brown as sureties for the loan; and he asked that satisfaction of the decrees might be entered. The bill alleged, that John H. Lee was insolvent at the time of his first appointment as guardian, and so continued up to the filing of the bill, andwas known by his sureties to be insolvent when they signed his bond; that it was understood and [Lee v. Lee.] agreed between him and them, at and before the execution of his bond, that he would lend the moneys belonging to his wards to the said Perry Insurance and Trust Company, of which said W. R. Brown was then the president, and F. A. Bates, J. W. Crenshaw, and W. M. Brooks were directors; that on the 5th March, 1872, pursuant to this agreement, he loaned all the moneys which he had received to said insurance company, without taking or requiring any security for the loan; that said company was then greatly embarrassed, and in doubtful circumstances, and its condition was well known to its directors; that on the 28th January, 1873, the said company was in failing circumstances, and unable to pay its debts, and had not repaid any of the money borrowed from said guardian; that said J. W. Crenshaw, knowing these facts, threatened to make application to the Probate Court to be released from liability on said guardian's bond; that thereupon it was planned between said Crenshaw, Brown, Bates, and other officers of said company, and said guardian, that he should settle his accounts, resign his guardianship, make application to be re-appointed, give a new bond, and acknowledge satisfaction of the decree that might be rendered against him; that this plan was contrived for the purpose of releasing said Crenshaw from liability on said guardian's bond, without the payment of any money, and without calling on said corporation for the money, and it was carried into effect and consummated, as shown by the proceedings had in said Probate Court; that said guardian made application for his re-appointment for the purpose of carrying out this agreement, and did not collect any money from said insurance company, as he reported he had done on the 9th April, 1873; that W. B. Modawell and W. R. Brown, whom he reported he had taken as sureties for the new loan, were at that time insolvent; that the insurance company had become insolvent, and had ceased to do business, and its assets had been placed in the hands of a receiver; that the guardian had thereby become unable to furnish the infant complainants with the means of subsistence and education, and their funds were in danger of being entirely lost; and they insisted that all the sureties on the two bonds were liable to them for the moneys which their guardian had received. The bill prayed that an account might be stated, to ascertain the amount due to the complainants respectively from the said guardian; that he and his sureties might be required to pay to the adult complainant, John Lee, the amount ascertained to be due to him; that the amounts ascertained to be due to the infants respectively might be paid over to a receiver, or some suitable |