The single object of this action is the removal of the defendants from their office as testamentary guardians of the plaintiff now over twenty years of age. Some questions of practice were raised and discussed before us, but we do not think it important to consider them. Ve think the interest of both parties will be better subserved by considering the merits of the case.
*371Taking the allegations, facts and evidence as they appear on the record, we are of opinion that the order of removal ■was improperly made.
It is not alleged or found as a fact by the clerk that the estate has been wasted, or that the defendants are insolvent, or that the plaintiff would be unable to recover the ■whole of her estate on a final settlement; on the contrary the defendants aver their ability to satisfy any amount due the petitioner.
Mismanagement in general terms is alleged and found as a fact by the clerk, but in what respect it occurred, does not appear, nor is any evidence furnished in support of the charge. It is alleged and admitted that defendants have not made their guardian returns “according to law.” This is negligence, and is probably what is meant by mismanagement in the present instance. Eor this omission to make their quarterly and annual returns, it was the duty of the Judge of Probate to require them to be made, and on failure to do so to attach and remove the defendants from their office. Bat. Rev., eh. 53, §§ 14, 15, 55, 56.
This omission of the defendants however does not necessarily show they are neglecting the substantial condition of the estate, or that the plaintiff' is likely to be damaged thereby. Something like this should appear before the defendants are removed against the will of the testator.
Error. Judgment reversed.