
    GEORGE B. DOUGLAS, Guardian, v. A. H. CALDWELL, Guardian.
    
    Where it appeared that the property, in this State, of a ward residing in another State, consisted of good bonds, at interest, in the hands of his guardian here, a part of which arose from the sale of land, and the ward was nearly of age, and there was no special necessity made tp appear for making a transfer of the property, the Court of Equity, in the exercise of its discretion, refused to order a transfer of the estate to the hands of a guardian appointed in such other State.
    Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Rowan county.
    This was a petition by a guardian, in another State, to obtain the property of his ward in the hands of a guardian here.
    The petition is filed by George B. Douglas, the father, of the ward, George C. Douglas, alleging that in the month of April, 1858, he was duly appointed by the Court of Ordinary of Dougherty county, in the State of Georgia, guardian of the person and property of his said son, and gave bond with two good sureties, according to the requirements of the law, as it is in that State. An exemplified copy of such appointment,, with the bond taken, is filed, and depositions are taken, establishing the validity of the bond as to form, and as to the solvency and pecuniary ability of the sureties. The petition states, that in the year 1858, the ward was about fourteen years old, and that it is his purpose, and that of the petitioner, his father, to remain, permanently, in the State of Georgia. The petition sets out further, that as guardian of the person of his son, he has been allowed for the support and maintenance of his son, since the year 1855, by the Court of Equity of Rowan, the annual sum of $300, which, in the year before the petition was filed, to wit, in 1858, was increased to $400.— The answer of the defendant is filed, and discloses the fact, that the estate of his ward is between 25,000 and 30,000 dollars ; that he has not yet fully settled with the former guardian, but he thinks there will be about that amount; that in January, 1859, by a decree of the Court of Equity of the county of Rowan, N. C., the negroes of his ward were sold at public auction, and bonds, bearing interest from date, well secured by sureties, were taken by a commissioner appointed by said Court, and that when the answer was filed, the credit had not expired. The answer also sets out, that about twenty-five hundred dollars ©f the fund arose upon land, which was sold by a decree of the Court of Equity of Rowan, which also is investd in bonds, with good security, bearing interest.
    The evidence taken in the cause, clearly established the facts set out in the pleadings. The cause being set down for hearing on the bill, answer, exhibits and proofs, was sent to this Court by consent.
    
      Fowle, for the plaintiff.
    
      Wilson, for the defendant.
   MaNly, <L

There are several reasons which induce us to deny the.object of the petition:

The minority of the ward is now of short duration. The fund is safely invested in interest-bearing stocks of medium value, and with respeet to a portion of it, at least, it cannot be changed, without loss, at this time. The unavoidable losses and hazards of collecting and re-investing so large an amount, makes such a measure inexpedient in any stage of a minor’s wardship. There ought to be some object of primary importance in view to justify it, so near the close. No such object is suggested. The transmission to the guardian of the ward’s person of such amounts, as, from time to time, may be deemed .proper and necessary for his maintenance and education, at this important period of his life, is matter of little inconvenience. Beyond this, we can conceive of no reason for the removal of the fund at this time, and against it stands the risks and incidental losses, which must, necessarily, attend the transfer.

The petition sets forth, that a portion of the fund belonging to the ward, consists of moneys and securitiesfor moneys, arising from the sale of land. This, in connection with the provision m the Rev. Code, chap. 54, sec. 33, suggests another reason, which has some weight in infinen eing the discretion of the Court: The Code provides,. that when personalty is substituted for realty by a sale of a minor’s property, the substitu-. ted personalty shall be enjoyed, alienated, and devised and shall descend, as by law, the property sold, would have done, had it not been sold, until it shall be restored by the owner, to its original character. Considering this part of the fund, therefore, as real estate, subject to descend upon the heirs-at-law of the present owner, a further reason for retaining it within the jurisdiction of the Court, until the ward is of age, is apparent. Upon the whole case, we are of opinion that it is unadvisable; at the present time, to mahe a decree for the removal of the estate.

The petition should be dismissed, but without costs.

Pee Cuedam, Petition dismissed.  