Biddle v. Reys

Estates op Deceased Persons—Final Account of Administrator— Charge op Interest—Burden op Proof.—An administrator is not to he charged in the settlement of his final account even with simple interest upon the funds of the estate which have come into his hands, unless it is made to appear that some loss has been caused by his negligence or fault. He is not to be charged with compound interest, unless he is shown to be guilty of some positive misconduct or willful violation of duty. The burden is upon the contestant of his account to show that be should he charged with any interest.

Id.—Commingling op Funds—Deposit in Bank—Compound Interest.— Mere evidence that an administrator mingled the funds of the estate with his own funds, would not justify charging him with interest thereon; and evidence that he deposited moneys of the estate in a bank, managed by his brother, who was a surety on his bond, does not justify a finding that he embezzled the estate, or warrant charging him with compound interest, in the absence of proof that the bank made any other use of the funds deposited than that made by banks of deposit in general.

Id.—Errors in Account.—Errors in the account in the omission of items in respect of which there is no evidence of embezzlement or conversion, does not justify a charge of compound interest thereon; nor can the administrator be charged with simple interest on any omitted sum of money prior to the date at which it was received.

Id.—Finding Assailing Integrity op Administrators—Insufficiency op Peoof.—A finding which assails the integrity of the administrators may be challenged by them for insufficiency of proof, although it does not affect the result of the accounting.

Id.—Payment op Allowance to Widow—Receipt as Evidence.—The production of a voucher from the widow, showing a receipt of payment of “one thousand dollars balance payment of the eighteen hundred dollars allowed by the court for widow’s allowance,” is prima facie evidence that only one thousand dollars of the allowance was then unpaid, and threw upon the contestant the burden of showing the contrary; and in the absence of counter-proof the court should credit the payment of the allowance in full.

Id.—Order for Payment into Court—Discharge of Administrator— Liability to Creditors.—The court has no power to order an administrator to pay the balance of the estate into court, and that he thereupon be discharged. He is responsible for the assets until paid out by him under the directions of the court; and upon the entry of the order for the payment of claims, he becomes liable therefor, both personally and upon his bond, to the creditors who are entitled to execution, which liability he cannot escape by complying with an order to pay the money into court, which the court had no power to make.