In re Estate of Taylor
In the Matter of the Estate of ROBERT D. TAYLOR
- Area
- probate
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
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. ( 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.
Cited by
- Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust S105600 · 2004-07-15
- Chandler v. Guiol Civ. 39914 · 1972-11-20
- Estate of Barbikas Civ. No. 18021 · 1959-06-23
- Vytina Society v. Phillips Civ. No. 18021 · 1959-06-23
- Barreiro v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n Docket No. 488. · 1932-09-13
- Young v. Matthew Turner Co. S.F. No. 6322. · 1914-10-16