Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/31

 MICON V. LAMAB. '23 �thus to give away the property and rights of his ward. If the new guardian bas actually realized anything from the securi- ties transferred, I see no reason why, in the taking of the aceount, defendant's testator should not be credited with it. �4. The defence of a ratification by the ward is not made eut by the evidence. Such a ratification must be very clearly proved, and it must appear that it was made with full knowl- edge of ail the facts and a full understanding of the legal rights of the ward affected thereby. Adair y. Bremmer, 74 N. y. 539-554. Neither of these circumstances is shown in this case. It is true that Ann G. Sims, in 1867, made a written request for the appointment of a guardian in Alabama, in place of her former guardian. She was then about 16 years old. She came of age June 1, 1872, and commenced this suit July 1, 1875. She was not shown to have done any act waiving her claim meanwhile. It is true that her uncle and aunt Micon, with whom she lived, had written letters expressive of tbeir gratitude to the defendant's testator for doing as well by their niece as he had done, but these letters do not bind the ward, and if they did they are not shown to bave been written with a full knowledge of the ward's rights. �5. The additional defence set up in the cross suits is also untenable. Mrs. Micon, the present plaintiff, at the time the alleged acts of approval by her were done, did not stand in the relation of a natural guardian to the infants, having any power as such over their estate. She was their aunt, and after the death of Martha M. Sims she was one of the next of kin of the surviving infant, Ann C. Sims. A guardian upon whom the law throws the real responsibility for the proper and legal investment of his ward's money canuot relieve himself from that responsibility by pleading the ad- vice, direction or approval of bis ward's relatives, liowever near; and Mrs. Micon, before the death of Ann C. Sims, had no such interest in the estate as would make her admissions and acts binding on her, when afterwards she became the administratrix of Ann C. Sims. Nor is the evidence of rat- ification and approval satisfactory, even in respect to the present plaintiff, for the reasons above stated. ��� �