If tbe complaints fail to state a cause of action against the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company tbe other exceptions presented on this appeal become immaterial.
An examination of the complaints discloses that there is no breach of its bond by the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company charged or alleged. The language most nearly approximating an allegation to this effect is as follows: “14. As plaintiff is advised, informed and believes, the guardianship estate belonging to this plaintiff, and the other wards named, which was in the hands of the said J. B. Adams, guardian as aforesaid, at the time of his death, came into the hands of Mrs. Yiola Lee Adams, the administratrix upon his estate, and thereafter, upon her petition for guardianship of the estate of this plaintiff and the other wards named, she was duly appointed, and she regularly qualified and entered upon the discharge of her duties as such on 30 April, 1931.” In a subsequent paragraph the complaints alleged that demand was made upon the successor guardian, Viola Lee Adams, and that she has failed to account. Paragraph 14 of the complaint, when construed in connection with the other allegations, more nearly constitutes an allegation of full compliance than a breach, and the judgment overruling the demurrer ore tenus was erroneous.
But it is contended that the bond of the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company and the bond of the Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation were executed to assure the faithful administration of one estate and are cumulative; that being cumulative, default on the part of either guardian would impose liability upon both bonds.
A guardian occupies a position of trust which exists during the nonage of his ward, unless sooner terminated by death, resignation or removal. Where he has given successive bonds with different sureties, the sureties are jointly and severally liable, and upon default of the guardian they are liable to contribution among themselves proportionate to the amount of their respective bonds. Thornton v. Barbour, 204 N. C., 583, and cases therein cited. When, however, the term of the guardian for whom the bond is written ends, the liability of the bond ceases. The surety for a guardian is in nowise liable for the default or miscarriage of a successor guardian, nor is the surety for a successor guardian in anywise chargeable with the maladministration of the original guardian. Each term stands upon its own bottom. Thornton v. Barbour, supra. *340Tbe contention tbat in any event tbe default of tbe successor guardian imposed liability upon tbe appealing defendant, surety for tbe original guardian, on tbe theory tbat tbe two bonds were given to assure tbe faithful administration of tbe same estate, cannot be sustained.
It appears from tbe record tbat one of tbe infant children of Jesse A. Adams, deceased, is not a party plaintiff. It is tbe duty of tbe clerk, as probate judge, to take such action as may be necessary to protect tbe interest of this infant.
Tbe judgment below, in so far as it affects the- Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company, is
Eeversed.