
    Hartley vs. Head, guardian.
    Where a ward became of age in 1870, and instituted no proceedings against her guardian until 1882, when she cited him before the ordinary for a settlement, the action was barred by the statute of limitations; nor wa j the bar of the statute relieved by the fact that she had demanded a settlement, and the guardian had replied that he had better keep her money; that it would do her more good; and promised that he would settle with her.
    October 16, 1883.
    Statute of Limitations. Guardian and Ward. Before Judge Simmons. Houston Superior Court. April Term, 1883.
    Reported in the decision.
    W. O. Winslow ; J. H. Branham, for plaintiff in error.
    Duncan & Miller, for defendant.
   Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error cited the defendant before the court of ordinary for a settlement of his accounts as her guardian. The case was carried to .the superior court by appeal. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and upon the trial it was shown that plaintiff, the ward, became of age in the year 1870, and that this proceeding was commenced November, 1882. Plaintiff testified that defendant, when she demanded a settlement, said that he had better keep her money, that it would do her more good, and promised that he would settle with her. The court charged the jury that, if these facts were true, she was barred by the statute; this ruling is made a ground of error in the motion for new trial. If this testimony is true, the charge of the court was right, and there was no error in refusing the new trial here. See Code, §2922; 56 Ga., 684; 66 Ga., 255 ; 60 Ga., 449 ; 61 Ga., 356.

Judgment affirmed.  