He is entitled to the care and custody of the person of his ward; Ward v. Roper, 7 Humphr. (Tenn.) 111; Ex parte Bartlett, 4 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 221; even against par ents; L. R. 8 Q. B. 153; but latterly it is held that the wishes and best interests of the child will be consulted ; Garner v. Gor don, 41 Ind. 92; In re Heather Children, 50 Mich. 261, 15 N. W. 487. If a female ward marry, the guardianship terminates both as to her person and property. It has been thought to continue over her property if she marries a minor. If a male ward marries, the guardianship continues as to his estate, though it has .been said to be otherwise as to his person. If he marries a female minor, it is said that his guardian will also be en titled to her property ; Reeve, Dom. Rel. 328 ; 2 Kent 226.
A guardian may change the residence of his ward from one county to another in the same state. But it seems that the new coun ty may appoint another guardian; Ex parte Bartlett, 4 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 221. Wheth er he has the right to remove his ward into a foreign jurisdiction has been a disputed question.; Field, Inf. 114. In England, a guardian, being a parent, can change the child's domicil ; 10 Cl. & F. 42; otherwise probably if the guardian be not a parent ; Tiffany, Dom. Rel. 317. A natural guardian may change the domicil of his ward ; In re Benton, 92 Ia. 202, 60 N. W. 614, 54 Am. St. Rep. 546. So held of a paternal grandfather, as guardian; id. Guardians who are not natural guardians can change the munici pal domicil of a ward, in the same state ; Tiff. Dom. Bel. 317; but not to another state ; Wilkins' Guardian, 146 Pa. 585, 23 Atl. 325; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 472, 5 Sup. Ct. 221, 28 L. Ed. 751; but see White v. Howard, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 294; In re Afilick's Estate, 3 MacArth. (D. C.) 95. By the common law, his authority both over the person and erty of his ward was strictly local ; Morrell v. Dickey, I Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 156 ; Bell v. Suddeth, 2 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 532. And this is the view maintained in most of the states. See Story, Conf. Laws § 540. But see, on this question, Wood v. Wood, 5 Paige Ch. 596, 28 Am. Dec. 451; Dupree v. Perry, 18 Ala. 34; Cooke v. Beale, 33 N. C. 36; 3 Mer. 67; Holyoke v. Haskins, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 20, 16 Am. Dec. 372 ; DOMICIL.
The court of chancery may interfere to prevent a guardian from attempting an im portant change in the religious impressions • of a ward if upon examination such change seems dangerous and improper; 8 D. M. & G. 760. See Brett, L. Cas. Mod. Eq. 90.
A guardian in one state cannot maintain an action in another for any claim in which his ward is interested ; Cox v.. Williamson, 11 Ala. 343 ; see Rogers v. McLean, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 304; Grist v. Forehand, 36 Miss. 69; Potter v. Hiscox, 30 Conn. 508 ; Story, Confl. Laws § 499; a guardian appointed in one state has no authority in another, except by comity, but the modern tendency is to sup port the authority of the guardian appointed in the domicil ; Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U. S.
613, 26 L. Ed. 585 ; L. R. 2 Eq. 704. He can not waive the rights of his ward,—not even by neglect or omission ; 2 Vern. 368; Cart wright v. Wise, 14 Ill. 417. No guardian, ex cept a father, is bound to maintain his ward at his own expense. But it is his duty to maintain and educate the ward, in a suitable manner from the income of the ward's es tate ; Preble v. Longfellow, 48 Me. 279, 77 Am. Dec. 227; Roscoe v. McDonald, 101 Mich. 313, 59 N. W. 603. It is discretionary with a court whether to allow a father anything out of his child's estate for his education and maintenance ; Reeve, Dom. Rel. 324; Haase v. Roehrscheid, 6 hid. 66. When the relation of guardian and ward ceases, the latter is entitled to have an account of the adminis tration of his estate of the former.
Rights and liabilities of wards. A ward owes obedience to his guardian, which a court will aid the guardian in enforcing; 3 Atk. 721. While under the care of a guard ian, a ward can make no contract whatever, binding upon him, except for necessaries. The general rule is that the ward's contracts are voidable ; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass. 237, 7 Am. Dec. 134 ; yet there are some con tracts so clearly prejudicial that they have been held absolutely void : such as contracts of suretyship ; Maples v. Wightman, 4 Conn. 376, 10 Am. Dec. 149.
A ward cannot marry without the consent of his or her guardian ; Reeve, Dom. Rel. 327. And any one marrying or aiding in the marriage of a ward without such con sent is guilty of contempt of court; 2 P. Wms. 562 ; 3 id. 116 ; but this whole doctrine is peculiar to the laws of England and has no application in the United States ; Schoul. Dom. Rel. 517.
Infants are liable for their torts in the same manner as persons of full age ; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 391; Fitts v: Hall, 9 N. H. 441. A ward is entitled to his own earnings ; 1 Bouvier, Inst. 349. He attains his majority the day before the twenty-first anniversary of his birthday. See AGE. He can sue in court only by his guardian or prochein ang; 4 Bla. Com. 464. He could not bring an action at law against his guardian, but might file a bill in equity calling him to account; 3 P. Wms. 119; Min ter v. Clark, 92 Tenn. 459, 22 S. W. 73. Mi nors who are kept occupied by their tutor,. to teach them habits of industry, cannot ex act compensation of him; Hollingsworth's Heirs, 45 La. Ann. i34, 12 South. 12. By the practice in chancery, he was allowed one year to examine the accounts of his guardian after coming of age ; In re Van Horne, 7 Paige (N. Y.) 46. See Taylor v. Hill, 86 Wis. 99, 56 N. W. 738. The statute of limi tations will not run against him during the guardianship ; Alston v. Alston, 34 Ala. 15. But see LimirArioNs.