In re Estate of Taylor (1877) · DecisionDepot

In re Estate of Taylor

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 5110Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Executors are not personally liable for the loss of estate property if they acted in good faith and with ordinary discretion, absent a showing of clear neglect of duty.

Issues

Whether executors are liable for the loss of estate funds resulting from the death and insolvency of a debtor.

Disposition. Remanded with directions to modify orders.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“An executor is not responsible for the loss of property so long as he acts in good faith and with ordinary discretion.”

“A case must be proved of clear neglect of duty in order to charge him with the loss.”

“The appellants, executors of Taylor, were not, under the circumstances here appearing, justly chargeable with the three hundred and ninety-four dollars lost”

Synopsis

.Accoumts of Executors.—If executors exercise their best judgment in employing an agent abroad to receive and forward to them money belonging to the estate, and employ one who is well recommended to them, they are not chargeable in the settlement of their account with money lost by the inolvency of the agent.

An executor is not responsible for the loss of property so long as he acts in good faith and with ordinary discretion.

A case must be proved of clear neglect of duty in order to charge him with the loss. ( Wébb v. Bellinger, 2 Desaus. Eq. 507; William v. Maitland, 1 Ired. Eq. 92; Thomas v. White et al. 8 Litt. 184-5; Schultz v. Pulver, 11 Wend. 367-374; Rowan v. Nirhpatrich, 14 111. 12-13; Whitted et al. v. Webb et al. 2 Dev. & B. Eq. 447; Next et al. v. Pouher, 1 Strob. Eq. 170; Boggs v. Adger, 4 Rich. Eq. 412; Neff’s Appeal, 57 Pa. St. 95.)

Burch & Griffiths, for the Respondents.

By the Court : The appellants, executors of Taylor, were not, under the circumstances here appearing, justly chargeable with the three hundred and ninety-four dollars lost through the death and insolvency of Michaels in New York.

Cause remanded, with directions to modify the orders accordingly. Remittitur forthwith.

In re Estate of Taylor

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief