30 A. 458 | R.I. | 1894
Lead Opinion
The appellant claims that certain payments made by the executors were unwarranted and should be disallowed, and that the executors should be charged interest on the money kept by them on deposit from the end of the first year after their appointment, instead of from the end of the third year, as charged by the Probate Court, and at the rate of five per cent. per annum or more, instead of four per cent as charged by that court.
1. I find that the several payments objected to were actually made; that they were for repairs to the grounds, buildings and furniture of a summer hotel which the will directed to be sold by the executors. The evidence convinces me that these expenditures were judiciously made, and were necessary to make the property marketable at a fair price, or to secure rentals from it until it became possible to sell. I therefore allow these items as proper charges against the estate.
2. I find that the will was proven and the executors appointed November 28, 1887. At that time, they found on deposit in cash $22,632.95. From that time until the rendering of the account, November 7, 1892, the executors kept *614
on deposit in the Merchants Bank in Newport, of which one of them was cashier, a large sum of money, averaging, from November 28, 1888, to the date of the account, $13,127.00. Mrs. Bateman had died, and the executors held this money only on trust to divide it among the residuary legatees. The only reason assigned for keeping this sum idle for this long time is the desire of the executors to add to it the proceeds of the sale of the real estate, in order to make one division and distribution of the fund. This reason does not seem to me sufficient to justify their inaction. Nothing in the condition of the estate appears to have required the keeping of this money deposited on call. The balance of the money on hand, together with the dividends, rents, interest on notes and income from sales, was enough to pay all debts and expenses. If the executors chose to wait till the end of the three years before distributing this fund, as they lawfully might do, they should have deposited it in some savings bank or trust company, where it would have been equally safe and where they would have been paid from four to five per cent. per annum, with semi-annual rests. Monteith's Executors v.Baltimore Association,
I think that from November 28, 1888, to November 28, 1890, they should be charged interest on $13,127, at the rate of four per cent. per annum.
After November 28, 1890, when their duty to distribute became imperative, I see no reason why they should not pay interest at the rate of six per cent. White v. Ditson,
As the executors did not make direct personal profit from the fund, but kept it safely deposited, I do not charge them with compound interest.
Upon the announcement of the foregoing decision, the executors filed a petition for a new trial.
Addendum
We find no error in the decision of the Common Pleas Division charging the executors with interest. The grounds for thus charging *615 them are clearly set forth in that decision. We concur in those grounds and adopt them as a part of our opinion.
The fact that it was not made to appear at the trial that the executors knew who the persons were that were entitled to share in the money in their hands, or their places of residence, is not enough to relieve them from the payment of interest. Even if such was the fact, it was still the duty of the executors to have deposited the money where it would have earned interest for the benefit of those entitled to the money when they were ascertained. Esmond v. Brown, ante, p. 48; Marsh v.Hague, 1 Edw. Ch. 174, 187; Lyon v. Maganos, 7 Gratt. 377;Bourne v. Mechan, 1 Gratt. 298.
The executors' petition for a new trial is denied and dismissed with costs, and the cause is remitted to the Common Pleas Division for entry of decree in accordance with its decision.