Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/194

 182 FEDERAL REPORTER. he holds his appointment, he is only chargeable with that of which he actually takes possession. I cannot subscribe to this doctrine. I think it is the duty of the guardian to take into his possession, so far as he is able, the estais of his ward, whoever it may be, and that he is not to be justified in abandoning any part of it because it happens to be out- side of the jurisdiotion of the state wherein he is appointed. It is objected, however, that the laws of Georgia interposed an obstacle to prevent the guardian from reducing this stock to possession and removing it from the state, Qr selling it and investing the proceeds as required by the law of New York. There was a short period, from the spring of 1859 to Janu- ary, 1860, when the infants resided in Georgia with their relatives. After that they resided in Alabama, and before that, from shortly after the appointment of the guardian till the spring of 1859, when their mother, Mrs. Abercrombie, died, in Connecticut with their mother. It appears that by the law of Georgia a foreign guardian cannot remove prop- erty within the state belonging to his ward without the con- sent of the ordinary. The matter appears to be committed to the discretion of the ordinary. I cannot conceive of any reason why the ordinary should refuse his consent, unless it were during the brief period that the wards resided in that state. It does not appear that in this case the guardian ever applied for his consent. And, the burden being upon the guardian to show that he oould not get possession of the property and invest it as required by the terms of his ap- pointment, I think the defendant has failed to sustain that burden, or to show that there was any obstacle growing out of the laws of Georgia which prevented his getting possession of the stock and investing it properly, It is alao elaimed by defendant that he should be allowed a deduction from the value of this stock for the expense that would be necessarily incurred in reducing it to possession. There is no proof what the expense would be, or that it would be more than nominal. It is not to be presumed that the mother of the wards would have interposed any dijB&culties, or that the guardian would have been charged with any expanses in ob-