a conservator upon petition for one "incapable of managing his affairs," this does not exclude the exercise of discretion on the part of the probate court or of the superior court of appeals.1 A right of action is " property" within the meaning of the statute for the appointment of conservators. The right of action to reclaim the title to land in the state is property in Connecticut. An incapable person, whose only property is the right of action to recover lands which he has alienated while in an incapable condition, may have a conservator appointed for him. At the same time, the court may take into account the ward's right of action to reclaim lands in another state and to prosecute demands against non-residents; and it may appoint a conservator for him, if he has a domicile in Connecticut, even though there is pending in another state a suit for the protection of his rights to real property there. The law is designed not only to provide for the person during his life or disability, but presumedly to safeguard what means of support he possesses and what property he owns, which is not needed for his support.2 The court may accept as credible the testimony of the person put under a conservator. The weight of his testimony is a matter wholly for the trier.3 According to the statute, the court having jurisdiction is that of the district in which the ward has his residence or domicile. A ward went to a town in another probate 1 1904, ante, 76 Conn., 405. The probate court had denied the petition for the appointment of a conservator, while the superior court had granted it. Each had acted within its powers. 'Ibid. In this case, the ward had given away his property to his relatives while feeble-minded. He was cared for by his sister, who was then seventy-five years old, but there was no legal obligation resting upon her and no provision for his support in case of her death. Under such circumstances, a conservator might be appointed. 3 Ibid. district with the intention of remaining. His conservator later gave him permission to stay awhile and paid the person with whom he lived for food and clothing. He remained until his death and was admitted as a voter. This gave him a domicile in the new town, and the court of that district had the jurisdiction for the settlement of his estate, though the court in the other district, which appointed the conservator, had admitted the will to probate there.' For domicile in the technical sense is the actual or constructive presence of a person in a given place, coupled with the intention to remain there indefinitely." An administrator's bond given by a conservator is void, being insensible and uncertain. The statute which requires that all probate bonds " shall be conditioned for the faithful discharge, by the principal in the bond, of the duties of his trust according to law," must be strictly complied with and permits no variation in the language of the condition. The disability of a person under a conservator does not follow him to another state where a Connecticut statute cannot operate. A contract made there is valid there and hence is equally so in Connecticut, though the party with whom the contract was made knew that the other party was under a conservator. A ward may bring suit to set aside a conveyance alleged to have been obtained by fraud or undue influence, and the conservator is not a necessary party to the action, even if the ward brings the suit "with the advice and consent of his conservator." " 11880, Culver's Appeal, 48 Conn., 165. 1890, Yale v. West Middle School District, 59 Conn., 489. 1881, ante, 49 Conn., 83. 1894. Security Co. v. Pratt et al., 65 Conn., 161. 1881, Gates v. Bingham, 49 Conn., 275. The case was a suit for rent for a tenement in Massachusetts due from the ward who had become a citizen there. 18,5. Looby v. Redmond et l'x., 66 Conn., 444. In many respects a conservator is only the agent of the court, the custody of the ward and the management of his estate being entrusted primarily to the court itself. The court may authorize a conservator to settle and adjust disputed or doubtful claims, and sanction in advance the proposed terms and conditions of the settlement, if it finds them reasonable and just.1 While a probate judge has no authority to direct that money in the hands of a third party, due to a ward, be paid to his conservator to satisfy a balance due to the latter, yet when a claim is made by the representative of a deceased ward against such third party, the payment under such order would be a good accounting for that much of the money in his hands, provided the amount was really due the conservator from the estate.2 A conservator is not liable for debts incurred by his ward before his appointment, these remaining charges against the ward alone. A conservator acts independently of his, ward, is alone the responsible party, and cannot bind by his contracts his ward or the latter's estate. Thus, the estate of a deceased ward is not liable for a claim based upon a false representation by his conservator that he would set aside a specified sum as payment for extra services, which were in fact rendered, were necessary, and reasonably worth the sum falsely promised.* While not expressly conferred by statute, the court holds that a conservator has authority to lease the estate of his ward for a reasonable time and may recover possession on the expiration of his term in his own name as conservator.5 Ibid. 4 1899, Merwin et al. Appeal, 72 Conn., 167. 51887, Palmer v. Cheseboro, 55 Conn., 114. The general rule of equity which warns a trustee not to sell without sufficient reason a trust fund received by him and properly secured, applies with peculiar force to a conservator. If he makes a change without an order of the court, he assumes, in an action on his bond, the burden of proving a reasonable cause for the change; and failing such proof, he may properly be held liable irrespective of his good faith in the transaction. The rule for damages where the ward rejected the unauthorized investment is the value of the securities at the time of the unlawful sale, plus the amount of the dividends they would have produced, and less the interest on the rejected investment received and used for the ward. Interest will not be compounded when the conservator acted in good faith. An investment in notes secured by mortgage on land in another state and guaranteel by a corporation is not one recognized by statute or common law. To justify such action the conservator must prove due diligence as well as good faith. It is not due diligence to make such investment without personal knowledge and on the statement of the broker offering to sell. 8. OVERSEERS No changes have been made since 1875 in the laws regarding the appointment and duties of overseers, perhaps be cause overseers are rarely, if ever, appointed at the present time. The law reads: If the selectmen of any town shall find any person likely to spnd and waste his estate and to become chargeable to the town, they shall appoint some person to be his overseer, to Had there been any present value to the investment, this would also in all probability have been deducted. 11896, State v. Washburn et al., 67 Conn., 187. advise and order him in the management of his business; which appointment shall be under their hands, specifying the cause, and the time, not exceeding three years, for which the appointment is made, and shall be set upon the sign-post in said town, and a copy thereof shall be lodged with the town clerk of the town.1 At least five days' written notice of the time and place of the proposed appointment must be given the person. If an attested copy of the notice is lodged with the town clerk, no contract or conveyance made between the serving of the notice and the day fixed for the hearing is valid without their approval.2 The selectmen may remove an overseer for neglect of duty or mismanagement and appoint another. "No person under the appointment of an overseer shall be capable of making a contract without his consent." " The duty of an overseer is to 3 superintend the management of the estate and concerns of such person; restrain him from improvident contracts, and from wasting his estate; and assent to all contracts and dispositions of his property necessary for a proper management of the concerns and support of such person or his family. In case of reform, the selectmen may revoke the appointment.* If a person under an overseer removes to another town, the appointment continues and the selectmen may reappoint the overseer or appoint another in the same manner as the original appointment was made; but if he gains a settlement elsewhere, no reappointment may be made." A person for whom an overseer has been appointed may 1 From 1750. 3 § 1833. Vid. p. 78. 2 From 1869, c. 63. Vid. p. 196. |