delivered the opinion of the court.
Clаimant, the sole beneficiary of a testamentary trust of which Adeline O’Donnell, deceased (hereinafter called decedent) was the trustee, apрeals from an order of the Circuit Court, entered on appeal from the Probate Court, disallowing his amended and alternative claim against the estate of decedent for $6,037.-84 — interest on the trust fund at 5 per cent per annum because decedent as executrix of the trustor, and as trustee, did not segregate the funds belonging to claimant or belonging to the estate of the trustor from her personal funds, and as trustee did not keep an account of her administration of thе trust and did not invest the trust fund as directed by the will of trustor and according to law, or, for $8,949.37 — interest at 10 per cent per annum as provided in section 462, chapter 3, Administration of Estates (Ill. Rev. Stats. 1953 [Jones Ill. Stats. Ann. 110.559]).
By will admitted to probate March 10, 1930 the trustor devised and bequeathed to decedent (his daughter and the aunt of claimant) as trusteе the sum of $5,000, or its equivalent in marketable bonds, in trust for the use and benefit of claimant, his grandson, and directed her to keep the trust fund properly invested; to apрly the income therefrom, so far as necessary, for claimant’s liberal maintenance and education; to add to the principal any excess оf the income not so used and to pay the principal and accumulation to claimant when he arrived at the age of 21 years, discharged of all trust.
Decedent qualified as executrix and administered the estate. She closed it December 5, 1940. She accepted the trusteeship and during claimant’s minority expended at least $500 for his use and benefit. When he became of age June 14, 1946 she paid $4,500 to claimant’s mother for his use and benefit. Decedent died testate December 8, 1952. Her will was admitted to probate.
Claimant filed a claim against tbe estate for $6,383— interest chargeable against decedent for delay in transferring tbe trust fund to herself as trustee, and interest which tbe trust fund could and should have earned by proper investment. Tbe Probate Court denied tbe claim. He appeаled. March 23, 1954 be filed in tbe Circuit Court a transcript of tbe record of tbe Probate Court and a jury demand. April 20,1954, on motion of tbe executrix (hereinafter callеd defendant), tbe demand for a jury trial was denied and tbe jury demand stricken. June 1,1954, by leave of court, claimant filed tbe amended and alternative claim, as herеinbefore stated. Defendant answered. A trial was bad before tbe court without a jury. Tbe court found that tbe amended claim was barred by laches and ordered that, therefore, tbe claim be dismissed at claimant’s costs.
On appeal claimant contends that bis claim is an action at law and not a suit in equity; that be is entitled to a trial by jury; that laches is not a defense to an action at law, and that laches was not proved. Defendant’s position is that tbe claim is a suit in equity; that laches is a bar to tbe claim, and tbe finding of the court as to laches is supported by tbe evidence; that claimant waived bis right to a jury trial by failure to renew bis demand for a jury after amending bis claim.
Claimant’s right to a trial by jury and defendant’s right to assert a defense of laches depend upon tbe character of tbe claim filed — whether it is a legal or an equitable claim. Tbe proceedings provided by statute for tbe presentation and allowance of claims аgainst tbe estates of decedents are in no proper sense suits or proceedings at law or in chancery, but purely statutory proceedings providing for tbe prompt and summary presentation, allowance and classification of all just claims against such estates. Grier v. Cable,
An examination of the claim filed and the evidence introduced to support it shows that the gravamen of the clаim is the failure of decedent, as trustee, to invest the trust fund as directed by the trustor. The relief sought is a money judgment- — -interest on the trust fund. This is a proper measure of damаges for the breach charged. Mathewson v. Davis,
The fact that decedent was a trustee does not convert the claim into a suit in equity. Courts of equity do not have exclusive jurisdiction of all actions against a trustee for breach of trust. 54 Am. Jur., Trusts, secs. 566, 576. In Wertheimer v. Glanz,
The claim being one cognizable in a court of law, claimant was entitled to a trial by jury. Defendant insists that he waived this right by not renewing his demand after he filed the amended claim. No authorities are cited or reasons stated for this contention. The аmended claim, like the original claim, was for interest on the trust fund because of decedent’s failure to invest it, and an action at law. There was no waiver of the right to a jury.
The claim being a legal and not an equitable claim, defendant cannot invoke the defense of laches. In Freymark v. Handke,
As the trial court disallowed the claim because of laches, we cannot review the evidence or express an opinion as to the merits of the claim.
The order is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed herein.
Reversed and remanded.