
    William E. Pugh vs. Washington Dorsey, Guardian of Adaline Martin.
    P. filed his bill in equity against D., alleging that W., while guardian of certain minors, employed P. to defend several suits against the estate of the minors; that D. afterwards became guardian of the minors, and continued P. in his professional employment in the suits, and prayed that D., as guardian, might be compelled to pay his fees; held, that the remedy of P., if any, against the guardian, was at law, and that a demurrer to the bill was properly sustained.
    On appeal from the equity side of the Yazoo circuit court; Hon. Morgan L. Fitch, judge.
    William E. Pugh filed his bill in the court below, in which he charges, that some time in the year-, John Martin died, seized and possessed of a large estate, both real and personal, and that his only heirs at law were Leonora Washburn, Joseph Martin, and Adaline Martin. That there had been -several administrators on the estate, and it had been much in litigation. In 1841, Washburn became interested in the estate by marrying Leonora, one of the heirs of Martin. Several suits were instituted against Washburn and wife, and the said Joseph and Adaline, which the complainant was employed to defend, by Washburn, in be-_half of himself and wife, and the said Joseph and Adaline; which suits the complainant, as attorney and counsellor, did successfully defend, to the relief both of the real and personal estate; and that the title to a portion of the real estate was defective, which the complainant perfected to the great benefit of the heirs. That complainant was employed to compel the administrator to distribute the personal estate, and to obtain partition of the real estate, and though both were resold, the complainant accomplished it to the benefit of the heirs. Pending most of these suits the probate court of Yazoo appointed Washington Dorsey guardian to the heirs, Joseph and Adaline. That he was apprized of what had been done, and was doing by complainant for the benefit of his wards, and for the preservation of the estate, to none of which did he object, or discharge the complainant, but received the benefit of the labor 'and professional services of complainant. That the charges made by complainant for his fees against each of the heirs, was $193 21, and they had been examined and allowed by the probate .court of Yazoo county. That by Washburn and wife, the other heir and distributee, the account as to them was thought reasonaable, and paid.
    The bill prayed that Dorsey, the guardian, might be decreed to pay this bill of fees, and for general relief.
    To this bill the defendant demurred, and the demurrer was sustained, ^.nd the bill dismissed ; from which decree the complainant appealed.
    
      William E. Pugh, in proper person.
    Can it be seriously contended that the charges made in this bill do not present a proper case for relief? This minor has received the labor of the complainant, by which his estate has been protected from destruction, and his property restored to him, and this with at least the tacit consent of his guardian. It is well settled that an infant is bound for all necessaries, and professional services rendered to his estate, by which it is-benefited, or saved from loss or destruction, are as much necessaries the clothes he wears, or the food he eats. Can there be any difference in his liability for legal services rendered to his estate, or medical services rendered to his slaves? The bill charges that the infant was benefited. The probate judge, who allowed the account, has adjudged he was, and the demurrer confesses he was. 7 Monroe’s R. 163; Peters’s Digest, 490; Barnett v. Norcum, 7 Leigh’s R. 412.
    
      jR. S. Holt, for appellee.
    The complainant, in the court below, does not state in his bill a case of which a court of chancery can take cognizance.| His demand, if just, is one for which the ordinary action of assumpsit would afford a plain, adequate and complete remedy.
    He charges no fraud, accident, or mistake. He shows no necessity of a discovery, or an account. He neither seeks to establish, nor enforce a trust. He simply claims to recover, in a court of chancery, his charge for work and labor, done and performed for the benefit of defendant’s ward. The court, having no jurisdiction of such a cause, rightly sustained the demurrer.
    But, even if the court could have entertained the cause, complainant could not have properly recovered. He alleges that he performed the services at the instance, and in pursuance of a contract entered into by him with other persons than the ward of defendant. He must look for compensation to his contract, and if he does not find it in its provisions he is without remedy. The doctrine that an attorney can at will plunge a minor into litigation, subject him to all its perils and losses, and then oblige him to satisfy his charges for such gratuitous services, is void, as, if it were sustained, it would be dangerous.
    True, it is alleged that the guardian, after his appointment, knew that complainant was thus serving his ward, and failed to discharge him. At most this could in law only afford ground for implying a promise on the part of the guardian to compensate complainant for such services, which would bind him in his individual character. As it is a familiar principle that a guardian cannot contract in his fiduciary capacity.
    The guardian, in fact, did not dismiss complainant, we presume, because he knew him to be representing and acting for those who had employed him, and not for his ward. It is, therefore, believed that the judgment should be affirmed.
   Mr. Justice Thachee

delivered the opinion of the court.

Pugh filed his bill on the chancery side of the circuit court of Yazoo county. He charges that one Washburn employed him to defend several suits instituted against the estate of several minor heirs ; that Dorsey was afterwards appointed guardian of those heirs, and became apprized of his employment to defend the said suits, and made no objection to his continuing his professional 'services. He prays a decree of payment from Dorsey, guardian. The court below allowed a demurrer to the bill, and decreed its dismissal.

The allegations of the bill clearly show, that if any remedy could avail against the guardian, it was such as could be prosecuted at law, and therefore the demurrer, upon that score alone, was properly allowed.

Decree affirmed.  