MICOU V. LAMAB. 185 �have been done. Nor do the circumstances tend to show that this property was needed to pay the debts of Mrs. Aber- crombie. Such a supposition is inconsistent with the terms of the letter of Mr. Lamar. It appeared that Mr. Abercrom- bie is living, and he was not called as a witness. There was at \ea,Bt prima facie evidence that the guardian had under his control, and so within his reach that he could have reduced them to possession, these two lots of stock, f ormerly be- longing to the mother of his wards, and his failure to call Mr. Abercrombie to show that the surrender of them was not immediate, if that was the fact, does not aid his case. The same suggestions relative to the expense of obtaining posses- sion of these stocks, and relative to any difficulty growing out of the laws of Georgia, apply to these items as to the interest of each of the wards in the one-third of the 10 shares Mechanics' Bank derived from her father. �The next question raised is whether the defendant's testa- tor should receive any credit for past-due coupons on one bond of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Eailroad, and three bonds of the city of Memphis, which were among the securities turned over to Mr. Micou, the new guardian. It is insisted by the plaintiff that there is no evidence that at the time they were so transferred they had any value. It ap- pears that about two years thereafter they beoame collectible. I think, however, there is evidence that they had value at the time of the transfer, and this is the agreed fact, that the bonds to which they belonged were then worth a certain per cent, of their face. In the absence of any evidence affeot- ing the validity of these over-due coupons, I think it may safely be assumed they were worth at least an equal per- centage on their face value. It is to be presumed that they have the same security for their payment as the principal of the bond, with the added advantage of being already due, — a circumstance which attaches to the possession of them rem- edies which the bonds themselves may not have carried with them. I think, therefore, the defendant's olaim for this credit is reasonable, and should be allowed. �I see no reason whatever for allowing a credit for the se- ��� �
