The fact that the guardian acted in good | cation of the funds of the estates they reprefaith is irrelevant and immaterial. Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 459, 463 (22:371, 372). The guardian had the right to invest Confederate money in his hands under the direc sent, by reason of such investments;" and that all administrators, executors, guardians, and trustees, claiming the benefit of the provisions of that act, should, before their final settlement, make oath before the ordinary of the county in which they had theretofore made their returns, "showing what funds of the estates they represent they have so invested, and shall also swear that the notes, bonds, or certificates, so held by them, are the same kind of currency which they received for the estates they so represent." Ga. Laws 1865-66, p. 85. On the 2d day of July, 1866, the guardian tion of the judge of the superior court hav-made a return to the proper court of his acts[391] ing jurisdiction. Ga. cts 1861, p. 32; Ga. Acts 1863-64, p. 29; Ordinances of the Conventions of Georgia, 1865-1868; Campbell v. Miller, 38 Ga. 304, 95 Am. Dec. 389; Miller v. Gould, 38 Ga. 465; Westbrook v. Davis, 48 Ga. 473; Saxon v. Sheppard, 54 Ga. 286; McWhorter v. Tarpley, 54 Ga. 291; Nelms v. Summers, 54 Ga. 605; Venable v. Cody, 68 Ga. 171; McCook v. Harp, 81 Ga. 236. Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court: William H. Baldy, a citizen of Georgia, died in that state prior to the civil war, leaving several children, one of whom was Marianne J. Baldy, who became of full age on the 21st day of February, 1875. In 1857 Dr. E. H. W. Hunter was appointed [390]her guardian, *and after duly qualifying as such took possession of the estate of his ward. By an act of the legislature of Georgia, passed on the 16th day of December, 1861, guardians, trustees, executors, and administrators were authorized to invest any funds held by them in the bonds issued by the Confederate states or in lands and negroes-an order to that effect being first obtained from a judge of the superior court, who was empowered to consider and pass such applications, either in term time or vacation. Ga. Laws 1861, p. 32. On the 25th day of April, 1863, the superior court of Jefferson county, Georgia, passed an order granting leave to the guardian of Miss Baldy to invest certain funds then in his hands in Confederate bonds. This order was granted upon the petition of the guardian, who expressed the opinion that such funds should be so invested. On the same day the investment was made. for the years 1864 and 1865, showing the amount in his hands, and also made oath before the ordinary of Jefferson county, Georgia, "that in 1863, in pursuance of an order, judgment, or decree of the superior court of said county as guardian of M. J. Baldy, minor, he did bona fide invest twelve hundred dollars of the funds of said minor in the eight per cent bonds of the Confederate states, and that the bonds so held by him are the said minor's estate." same kind of currency which he received for In 1876 Hunter received from the ordinary of Jefferson county letters of dismissal as guardian of the several children of William H. Baldy. He died nine years thereafter, in 1885, and this suit was brought in 1893 against his executor in the name of Marianne J. Baldy by her next friend, she having be come of unsound mind as far back at least as 1875, and being at the time this suit was brought in a lunatic asylum. At the trial below the plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury that "an investment by a guardian of money of his ward during the Confederate war, and while both guardian and ward were residing within the Confederate territory, in bonds of the Confederate states, was unlawful, and the guardian is responsible to the ward for the sum so invested;" and that no act of the legislature of the state "passed during the late war, authorizing the guardian to invest the funds of his ward in Confederate bonds, and no order of any court of the state granted in pursuance of said act of the legislature, would authorize such investment." Both of these instructions were refused. It is not contended that the case involves any question as to the statute of limitations. It was agreed at the trial that the only The legislature of Georgia, by an act ap- matter in issue was as to the liability of Hunproved March 12, 1866, entitled "An Act for ter's estate by reason of his having invested the Relief of Administrators, Executors, the ward's money in 1863 in bonds of the Guardians, and Trustees, and for Other Pur- Confederate states. This appears from the poses," declared that all administrators, exec- charge to the jury in which the trial court, utors, guardians, and trustees, who, in pur- after observing that its duty was to follow suance of an order, judgment, or decree of any the decisions of the supreme court of Georgia, court having jurisdiction, or of any law of said: "In the present case I am authorized that state, bona fide invested the funds of to say that it is agreed between counsel that the estate they represented in the bonds, the investment was made bona fide, and the notes, or certificates of the state of Georgia *only question is whether it was lawful or un-[392] or of the Confederate states, "be and they are lawful for the guardian to make this investhereby relieved from all the penalties of mis- ment; and, further, that as I may decide the management, misappropriation, or misappli- legal question, I shall instruct a verdict for 171 U. S. U. S., Book 43. 14 209 fort was given or intended to be given to the | dominated by the Confederate states, were From these cases it may be deduced not to be regarded, for that reason only, as invalid, it is difficult to perceive why a different principle should be applied to the investment by a guardian of his ward's Confederate notes or currency in Confederate bonds-both guardian and ward residing at that time, as they did from the commenceThat the transactions between persons ac- ment of the Civil War, within the Confedertually residing within the territory domi-ate lines and under subjection to the Confed. nated by the government of the Confederate erate states. states were not invalid for the reason only As to the question of the intent with which that they occurred under the sanction of the this investment was made, all doubt is relaws of that government or of any local gov-moved by the agreement of the parties at the ernment recognizing its authority; trial that the investment was bona fide, and That, within such territory, the preserva- that the only question made was as to its tion of order, the maintenance of police reg-legality. We interpret this agreement as ulations, the prosecution of crimes, the protection of property, the enforcement of con tracts, the celebration of marriages, the settlement of estates, the transfer and descent of property, and similar or kindred subjects, were, during the war, under the control of the local governments constituting the socalled Confederate states; meaning that the guardian had in view only the best financial interests of the ward in the situation in which both were placed, and that he was not moved to make the investment with the purpose in that way to obstruct the United States in its efforts to suppress armed rebellion. We are unwilling to hold that the mere investment in Confederate states bonds -no actual intent to impair the rights of the United States appearing-was illegal as between the guardian and ward. That what occurred or was done in respect of such matters under the authority of the laws of these local de facto governments should not be disregarded or held invalid *It is said, however, that any such conclu-[402] merely because those governments were or- sion is inconsistent with the decision in Laganized in hostility to the Union established mar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452, 476 [28: 751, by the national Constitution; this, because 760]. That was a suit in the circuit court the existence of war between the United of the United States for the southern disStates and the Confederate states did not re-trict of New York, having been removed lieve those who were within the insurrection- thereto from the supreme court of that state. ary lines from the necessity of civil One of the questions arising in that case was obedience nor destroy the bonds of so- as to the liability of a guardian for moneys ciety nor do away with civil govern- belonging to his wards which were invested ment or the regular administration of the by him during the Civil War in bonds of the laws, and because transactions in the ordi- Confederate states. This court said: "Other nary course of civil society as organized with- moneys of the wards in Lamar's hands, arisin the enemy's territory, although they may ing either from dividends which he had rehave indirectly or remotely promoted the ends ceived on their behalf or from interest with of the de facto or unlawful government or which he charged himself upon sums not inganized to effect a dissolution of the Union, vested, were used in the purchase of bonds of were without blame "except when proved to the Confederate states, and of the state of have been entered into with actual intent to Alabama. The investment in bonds of the further invasion or insurrection;" and, Confederate States was clearly unlawful, and [401] *That judicial and legislative acts in the re- no legislative act or judicial decree or decispective states composing the so-called Con- sion of any state could justify it. The sofederate states should be respected by the called Confederate government was in no courts if they were not "hostile in their pur-sense a lawful government, but was a mere pose or mode of enforcement to the authority government of force, having its origin and of the national government, and did not im- foundation in rebellion against the United pair the rights of citizens under the Consti- States. The notes and bonds issued in its tution." name and for its support had no legal value Applying these principles to the case before as money or property, except by agreement us, we are of opinion that the mere investor acceptance of parties capable of contractment by Hunter, as guardian, of the Con- ing with each other, and can never be refederate funds or currency of his ward in garded by a court sitting under the authorbonds of the Confederate states should be ity of the United States as securities in which deemed a transaction in the ordinary course trust funds might be lawfully invested. of civil society, and not, necessarily, one con- Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 [19: 361]; ceived and completed with an actual intent Head v. Starke, Chase, 312; Horn v. Lockthereby to aid in the destruction of the hart, 17 Wall. 570 [21: 657]; Confederate government of the Union. If contracts be- Note Case, 19 Wall. 548 [22: 196]; Sprott v. tween parties resident within the lines of the United States, 20 Wall. 459 [22:371]; Fretz insurrectionary states, stipulating for pay-v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198 [22: 769]; Alexander ment in Confederate notes issued in further-v. Bryan, 110 U. S. 414 [28: 195]. An inance of the scheme to overturn the authority fant has no capacity by contract with his of the United States within the territory guardian or by assent to his unlawful acts to |