Guardians appointed by court. The great er number of guardians among us, by far, are those appointed by court, in conformity with statutes which regulate their powers and duties. In the absence of special provi sions, their rights and duties are governed by the general law on the subject of guardian and ward.
Appointment of guardians. All guardians of infants specially appointed must be ap pointed by the infant's parent ; or by the in fant himself ; or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
After the age of fourteen, the ward is en titled to choose a guardian, at common law, and generally by statute ; Reeve, Dom. Rel. 320 ; Kelly v. Smith, 15 Ala. 687 ; Sessions v. Kell, 30 Miss. 458 ; 11 Jur. 114. His choice is subject, however, to the rejection of the court for good reason, when he is entitled to choose again ; Inferior Court v. Cherry, 14 Ga. 594. So guardianship by the sole ap pointment of the infant cannot now be said to exist. If the court appoint one before the age of choice, the infant may appear and choose one at that age, without any notice to the guardian appointed ; Sessions v. Kell, 30 Miss. 458 ; Kelly v. Smith, 15 Ala. 687 ; Bryce v. Wynn, 50 Ga. 332 ; Appeal of Adams, 38 Conn. 304. But if none be chosen, then the old one acts. It seems that in Indiana the old one can be removed only for cause shown ; in which case, of course, he is entitled to no tice ; Dibble v. Dibble, 8 Ind. 307. As to the method of appointment by the minor see 1 Sharsw. Bla. Corn. 462.
A probate, surrogate, or county court has no power to appoint, unless the minor resides in the same county ; Brown v. Lynch, 2 Bradt. Surr. (N. Y.) 214 ; Grier v. McLendon, 7 Ga. 362 ; Munson v. Newson, 9 Tex. 109 ; Dorman v. Ogbourne, 16 Ala. 759 ; De Jar nett v. Harper, 45 Mo. App. 415 ; but where the ward is a nonresident, guardianship is frequently recognized for the collection and preservation of his estate in the jurisdic tion, and in such cases, the court where the property is situated will appoint a guard ian, the existence of the property determin ing the jurisdiction ; Clarke v. Cordis, 4 Allen (Mass.) 466; 27 E. L. & Eq. 249. Per sons residing out of the jurisdiction will not usually be appointed guardians ; but this rule is not invariable, except by statute ; Schoul. Dom. Rel. 419: It has been a subject of doubt whether a married woman may be a guardian ; while there are cases which sustain their acts while acting as guardians, clear precedents for their actual appointment are wanting. See 2 Dougl. 433. It has been held, however, that a married woman may be co-guardian with a man, though, her sole appointment is im proper ; L. R. 1 Ch. 387. See Farrer v. Clark,
29 Miss. 195 ; Kettletas v. Gardner, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 488 ; Ex parte Maxwell, 19 Ind. 88. A single woman by her marriage loses her guardianship, it would seem ; but she may be reappointed ; 2 Kent 225 ; 2 Dougl. 433. It seems probable that recent statutes relating to the rights of married women will modify these cases. Where there is a valid guard ianship unrevoked, the appointment of an other is void ; Thomas v. Burrus, 23 Miss. 550, 57 Am. Dec. 154.
The court has jurisdiction to interfere with and remove the guardian of a child who has no property, on proof that it is for the wel fare of the child that the guardian should, be removed ; [1893] 1 Ch. 143.
Powers and liabilities of guardians. The relation of a guardian to his ward is that of a trustee in equity, and bailee at law; Swan v. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111. It is a trust which he cannot assign; 1 Pars. Contr. 116. He will not be allowed to reap any benefit from his ward's estate ; 2 Com. 230; except for his legal compensation or commission ; but must account for all profits, which the ward may elect to take or charge interest on the capital used by him ; Kyle v. Bar nett, 17 Ala. 306; he cannot purchase lands belonging to him; Hindman v. O'Connor, 54 Ark. 627, 16 S. W. 1052, 13 L. R. A. 490. He can invest tne money of his ward in real es tate only by order of court ; Sherry v. Sans berry, 3 Ind. i20 ; Davis v. Harris, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 9 ; Williams v. Morton, 38 Me. 47, 61 Am. Dec. 229; Washabaugh v. Hall, 4 S. D. 168, 56 N. W. 82; Belding v. Willard, 56 Fed. 699. And he cannot convert real estate into personalty without a similar or der; Field, Inf. 109 ; Taylor v. Galloway, 1 Ohio 232, 13 Am. Dec. 605 ; Jackson v. Todd, 25 N. J. L. 121; 2 Kent 230. The law does not favor the conversion of the real estate of minors ; Appeal of Davis, 14 Pa. 372; but if it be clearly to the interest of a minor that his real estate be sold, the court will award an order of sale, notwithstanding that in the event of his death during minority, the proceeds would go to other parties than those to whom the land would have descend ed had it not been converted ; Drayton's Es tate, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 157. The rule is differ ent in England; there land converted into money, or money into land, retains its char acter of land or money, as the case may be, during the nonage of the minor ; 6 Ves. 6.