
    Daniel Wallis & another vs. Josiah Bardwell & others.
    Esses.
    Nov. 8, 1878.
    March 3, 1879.
    Endicott & Lord, JJ., absent.
    A ward .is not liable for repairs put upon his dwelling-house by a person employed by the guardian to make them, even after the death of the guardian; and evidence that the repairs were necessary is immaterial.
    Contract on an account annexed for labor and materials furnished in the repair of a building upon real estate belonging to the defendants. Answer, a general denial.
    At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., without a jury, it was admitted by the defendants that they were minor children of Josiah Bardwell, who was the duly appointed guardian of each of them; that they were the owners as tenants in common of certain real estate, consisting of a dwelling-house and land in Beverly; that the plaintiffs were employed by the guardian, who has since died, to furnish, and did furnish, the labor and materials sued for, in repairs upon the house; and that the prices were reasonable. The plaintiffs further offered to prove, against the objection of the defendants, that the repairs were necessary. The judge rejected the evidence as immaterial; ruled that, upon the facts admitted, the defendants were not liable; and found for the defendants. The plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
    
      C. A. Benjamin, for the plaintiffs.
    
      S. B. Ives, Jr., for the defendants.
   Colt, J.

The evidence offered was properly rejected, as immaterial. The rule is, that a guardian can make no contract binding upon the ward, or upon his estate. The guardian has only the control and management of the ward’s estate, with no title to it; a power not coupled with an interest. He may make contracts in his own name, but they only bind himself; and the ward does not become a party to them after the death or discharge of the guardian. Thacher v. Dinsmore, 5 Mass. 299. Hicks v. Chapman, 10 Allen, 463. Simmons v. Almy, 100 Mass. 239.

The plaintiffs bring themselves within no exception to the rule. The contract here relied on, moreover, is one which, independently of the rule, would not be binding on the minors, if made by them; for repairs on a dwelling-house are not necessar ries in the technical sense of the word. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 559.

Exceptions overruled.  