
    THOMAS CAHOON, Guardian of William Arthurs.
    Orphans’ Court.
    March 13, 1771.
    
      Hilles’ Notebook, 4.
    
    
      Attorney for complainant,
    in support of the Court’s power, produced the following authorities: 1 P.Wms. 703, Duke of Beaufort v. James Bertie et al., guardians, where it is determined the chancery can interpose in the case of guardians testamentary, as well as socage; and even in case of an insolvent father likely to waste his child’s estate which he holds independent of him, where he is guardian, they might appoint a receiver of the rents etc., all these being trusts, subject to their jurisdiction. Swin.Wills 202, if a tutor be suspected, taken prisoner, non compos, beyond sea etc., he may be displaced. Note, at civil law, a tutor has care of the person, a curator of the estate; their joint power being equivalent to a guardian’s at common law. 2 Keb. 549, Tomkins v. Chadwick, et al., a parent (in French meaning any person instituted to guardianship, being next of kin and not an heir to the ward) may be discharged for misdemeanors (so the case implies) . Sty. 436, a guardian was discharged and a new one appointed to defend a suit. (Therefore new guardians may be appointed to take care of the estate.) 9 Mod. 139, admitted a guardian at common law may be removed; adjudged that a guardian appointed by the court may be removed at pleasure, but “a rightful guardian,” i. e. a testamentary guardian, or guardian at common law, could not be removed without cause. 2 P.Wms. 561, 562, Harris, a testamentary guardian, removed for marrying his infant ward beneath her, to his son, a child of no fortune, and the trust left with the other guardian. 2 P.Wms. 102 to 116, Justice Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, Court of Chancery has power to decide in all guardianships.
   The Court,

present, after duly considering etc., unanimously determined that this Court has power to remove all guardians, testamentary or others, as well for neglect of duty or injuries committed on the ward’s estate, as person; and thereupon going into the hearing of the complaint, after examining witnesses etc., are of opinion Thomas Gaboon has not abused his trust in the guardianship aforesaid; but deeming the ward’s estate not sufficiently secured, do order the said Thomas to come in on a certain day then mentioned, to be re-appointed to the same trust, and to give new security, etc.

Kitten for complainant. N. Vandyke for defendant.  