He may lease the land of his ward ; Rich ardson v. Noyes, 2 Mass. 56, 3 Am. Dec. 24; but if the lease extends beyond the minority of the ward, the latter may avoid it on com ing of age ; Genet v. Tallmadge, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y:) 561; Jones v. Ward, 10 Yerg. (Tenn.) 160; Snook v. Sutton, 10 N. J. L. 133. He may sell his ward's personalty without order of court ; Woodward v. Donal ly, 27 Ala. 198 ; Maclay v. Society,. 152 II. S. 499, 14 Sup. Ct. 678, 38 L. Ed. 528; and dis pose of and manage it as he pleases ; Ellis v. Proprietors, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 243. He is re quired to put the money out at interest, or show that he was unable to do this ; Davis v. Harris, 13 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 9; Fay v. Howe, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 527; Appeal of Luk ens, 7 W. & S. (Pa.) 48 ; 13 E. L. & Eq. 140; Jacobia v. Terry, 92 Mich. 275, 52 N. W. 629 ; Steyer v. Morris, 39 Ill. App. 382. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed that a guardian might have kept funds of his ward at interest; Steyer v. Morris, 39 Ill. App. 382. If he spends more than the net incolne of the estate in the maintenance and education of the ward without permission of the court, he may be held liable for the principal thus consumed; Frelick v. Turner, 26 Miss. 393 ; Tharington v. Tharington, 99 N. C. 118, 5 S. E. 414.
If he erects buildings on his ward's estate out of his own money, without order of court, he will not be allowed any compen sation; Hassard v. Rowe, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 22; Gearhart v. Jordan, 11 Pa. 326; Austin v. Lamar, 23 ,Miss. 189 ; Gerber v. Bauerline, 17 Or. 115, 19 Pac. 849. He is not chargeable with the services of his wards if for their own benefit he requires them to work for him; Armstrong's Heirs v. Walkup, 12 Grath (Va.) 608. A married woman guardian can convey the real estate of her ward without her husband joining ; 2 Dougl. 433. On mar riage of a female minor in Mississippi, her husband, although a minor, is entitled to re ceive her estate from her guardian; Wood v. Henderson, 2 How. (Miss.) 893; A guard ian who deposited the moneys of his ward, as guardian, in a bank that was solvent, with his sureties, was held not liable for loss upon the failure of the bank ; In re Law's Estate, 144 Pa. 499, 22 Atl. 831, 14 L. R. A. 103.
Joint guardians may sue together on ac count of any joint transaction founded on their relation to the ward, even, after the relation ceases ; Sherman v. Akins, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 283; see Blake v. Pegram, 101 Mass 5D2; and where one guardian consents to his co-guardian's misapplication of funds, he is liable ; Appeal of Clark, 18 Pa. 175. Guardians like other trustees—executors and administrators excepted—may portion out the management of the property to suit their respective taste and qualifications, while neither parts irrevocably with the control of the whole; and in such case each is charge able with no more than what he received, .un
less unwarrantable negligence in superin tending the others' acts can be shown ; Ap peal of Jones, 8 W. & S. (Pa.) 143, 42 Am. Dec. 282; and the discharge of one who has received no part of the estate relieves him from liability ; Hocker v. Wood's Ex'r, 33 Pa. 466.
Contracts between guardian and ward im mediately after the latter has attained his majority are unfavorably regarded by the courts, and will be set aside where they re dound to the profit of the guardian; Bisp. Eq. 234 ; Say's Ex'rs v. Barnes, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 114, 8 Am. Dec. 679; McClellan v. Ken nedy, 8 Md. 230; Sullivan v. Blackwell, 28 Miss. 737; Wright v. Arnold, 14 B. Monr. (Ky.) 638, 61 Am. Dec. 172; Gale v. Wells, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 84. Neither is he allowed to purchase at the sale of his ward's prop erty; Patton v. Thompson, 55 N. C. 285 ; Lefevre v. Laraway, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 167; Hindman v. O'Connor, 54 Ark. 627, 16 S. W. 1052, 13 L. R. A. 490. But the better opinion is that such sale is not void, but voidable only ; Wyman v. Hooper, 2 Gray (Mass.) 141; Mann v. McDonald, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 275. He is not allowed, without per mission of court under some statute author ity, to remove his ward's property out of the state ; Cook v. Wimberly, 24 Ala. 486 ; Welch v. Baxter, 45 La. Ann. 1062, 13 South. 629. He cannot release a debt due his ward; Forbes's Heirs v. Mitchell, 1 S. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 441; Horine v. Horine, 11 Mo. 649; although he may submit a claim to arbitra tion ; Goleman v. Turner, 14 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 118; Weston v. Stuart, 11 Me. 326; Bean v. Farnam, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 269; but he cannot do so when he is interested ad versely to them in the subject-matter of the arbitration ; Fortune v. Killebrew, 86 Tex. 172, 23 S. W. 976. He may collect or com promise and release debts due to the ward, subject to the liability to be called to account for his acts; MacLay v. Society, 152 U. S. 499, 14 Sup. Ct. 678, 38 L. Ed. 528. He can not by his own contract bind the perso,n or estate of his ward ; Jones v. Brewer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 314 ; nor avoid a beneficial contract made by his ward ; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass. 237, 7 Am. Dec. 134; Co. Litt. 17 b, 89 a. He becomes liable for negligence for failure to sue on a note due his ward's estate until the parties thereto are insolvent ; Cog gins v. Flythe, 113 N. C. 102, 18 S. E. 96. During the existence of the relation of guardian and ward, the latter is under the subjection of the former who stands in loco parentis.