years’ services, payments, and disbursements made by the plaintiff during that time, the sum of $6,536.75, and that the defendant has not made any further or other payment whatever to the plaintiff; of which sum $2,257.88 was paid in full settlement of the first year’s services of the plaintiff, and disbursements made by her on said first-mentioned written agreement. The further sum of $2,600.85 was paid in full settlement of the plaintiff’s services, traveling expenses, and money paid and disbursed by her under the last-mentioned agreement for the second year, to-wit, from August 14, 1881, to August 14, 1882, as above found by me,—leaving a balance of $1,678.02 to be applied to the payment of the said amount of $3,146.36 for the plaintiff’s said services and expenses, moneys paid and disbursed by her as above found by me for the above-mentioned one and a half years, to-wit, from August 14, 1882, to February 14, 1884; leaving a balance due the plaintiff from the defendant, after makingtthe proper application as aforesaid, of $1,468.34.
“ (8) I further find that after the rendition of said services as a foresaid, and the payment and disbursement of said moneys by the plaintiff, and in the month of May, 1884, the plaintiff duly demanded of the defendant the payment of the said balance of $1,468.34 remaining as aforesaid.
“(9) I further find that the interest on said last-mentioned balance of $1,468.34 from the commencement of this action, which I find was commenced on the 28th day of July, 1885, amounts to the sum of $--.
“(10) That during all the aforesaid time, and until after the month of March, 1884, the said daughters were, and each of them was, a minor under the age of 21 years.
“ (11) That the defendant was not a married woman at any time during the years 1880, 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884, and was the general guardian of said daughters during said years, respectively.
“I find as a matter of law that there is due the plaintiff from the defendant the sum of one thousand four hundred and sixty-eight dollars and thirty-four cents, ($1,468.34,) with interest thereon from the 28th day of July, 1885; being at this date the sum of $217.80, and amounting in all to the sum of $1,686.14, for which last-mentioned sum, together with the costs of this action, the said plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the said defendant in this action.”
From a judgment entered on this report defendant appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.Geo. M. Curtis, for appellant. W. J. Groo, for respondent.
The judgment rendered by the referee was fully sustained by the evidence. There are no errors of law brought to our attention sufficient to warrant setting aside the judgment. The defendant is clearly liable personally. It is clear that an action could not be sustained against the defendant in her representative capacity. Thacher v. Dinsmore, 5 Mass. 300 . But aside from the fact that the referee had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing them testify, and could better judge of their credibility than an appellate court, we cannot see how any injustice could have been done, except in determining the amount of the payments. That the plaintiff rendered the services, and that they ought to be paid for, there can be no doubt, and the defendant, being the natural guardian of the two minor daughters, was bound to support them. It was immaterial to the plaintiff from whence the funds to pay for her services came. It is disclosed here that it was the duty of the defendant, as guardian of the children, and as having them in her care and custody, to support and educate them, If it had been the intention of the father to make the estate of the infants the primary debtor, we must assume that it would have been accomplished by proper papers to effect the result. There is no evidence that such was the intention of the plaintiff, and the defendant has utterly failed to protect herself in this matter. It does not appear