145 P. 91 | Cal. | 1914
This is an appeal by Andrew J. Piercy from the same order which was under review in Estate of Piercy, (S.F. No. 6819), ante, p. 750, [
We think the appellant is right in his contention that the court should have charged respondent with interest at the legal rate, compounded with annual rests, upon the amount found due from him as the rental value of the real property of the estate. This is the ordinary rule where a trustee has used the trust property for his own benefit. If any loss occurs, the loss must be borne by him, while the beneficiaries are entitled to any profits realized. (Walls v. Walker,
That the distribution of the estate was unjustifiably delayed — a circumstance which has been regarded as having an important bearing on the question of liability for compound interest (In reHilliard,
The order is remanded, with directions to the court below to modify it by charging the respondent with interest upon the rental value of the land of the estate, at the rate of seven per cent per annum, compounded annually, from April 10, *759 1901, to October 8, 1912. As so modified, the order appealed from will stand affirmed.
Shaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.