correct," that if the money was properly applied by Cook it is the same thing as if it had been properly applied by Fithian" yet the executors of Fithian are not entitled to the benefit of that principle, for it does not appear that the money was paid by Fithian to Cook, for any purpose connected with the will-or that it has been properly applied. Evidence, not that Cook wanted the money for payment of debts and legacies, or that he so applied it; but only, that he afterwards paid debts and legacies to a greater amount than the money so received by him, is not sufficient to protect the assets of Fithian from the lossfor it neither proves that the money was paid over by Fithian for a purpose connected with a due execution of his duty nor that it was so actually applied by Cook. In the case before, of Lord Shipbrook vs. Lord Hinchbrook, the three executors who controverted their liability alleged that they joined in executing the power of attorney to the fourth executor, for the sale of the stock, upon his request and representation, that it was required for the purpose of paying debts-and Lord Eldon directed an enquiry whether the specific money received by the coexecutor was applied in the discharge of any and what debts. The present is simply the case of an executor, without any excuse, delivering over money to his co-executor to do just what he pleases with it: and the executor to whom it is delivered over, afterwards becomes insolvent and the money is thereby lost. Under which circumstances, according to all authorities, the executor paying it over, or in case of his death, his assets must make it good. In fact both executors appear to have been culpably negligent, and to have made themselves liable not only for the principal, but for the interest of it also. The complainant was quite young at the time of his father's death, and it was the intention of his father, that this legacy should accumulate during the complainant's minority.The will, therefore, expressly directs that the money, except what was necessary for the purposes then expressed, should after one year be put to interest. This direction has been totally and shamefully neglected, and there is no evidence that Fithian ever even enquired of Cook what he had done with the money, or in any way concerned himself about the execution of this trust, although the settlement of the Orphans' Court was in 1811. No person is obliged to accept the office of executor, but if he does accept it, he is bound by every moral and legal obligation faithfully to discharge the duties of it. He is not at liberity to act or not act when he pleases. He is not at liberty to sell and then omit to place the money at interest as directed by the testator-and to relieve himself from all further trouble and responsibility by paying over the money in his hands to his co-executor to do what he pleases with it. Such a doctrine would be ruinous, particularly to infants. The very object of appointing several executors is, to have their joint caution, diligence and responsibility in the management of the estate. And if executors are not to be held answerable for such gross palpable negligence and breach of duty as has occurred in this case, I do not know that executors can in any case be charged for neglect of duty. I shall, therefore, decree that both executors have made themselves liable for the amount due to complainant, according to the settlement in the Orphans' Court, together with interest, after making to the executors all just allowance-and that it be referred to a master to take the account, &c. The Chancellor said the decree being personal against the executors would be with costs. INDEX. Ale and Beer are strong drink, Argument List of Philadelphia Law Academy, notice of, Attorney General, member of House of Representatives, Admiralty decisions, Attorney at Law not a witness for his client, Adultery, requisites of indictment for, Allegheny District Court, Agent to conduct suit an Attorney, Attachment law of Illinois, Assumpsit by tenant in common, Burnside, J. Opinion on Riot, 46 66 vol. 7 66 Barbour's Chancery Reports, vol. 2-notice of Barbour's Law and Equity Reports, vol. 1-notice of, Brightly's Digest of Laws of Pennsylvania, Bartlett's Certainty of Medicine, Bell, President, opinion on continuing lien of judgments, Bottomry, case of, Baltimore County Court, Banking System, Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 383 Contract, what je entire, 17 Covenant of general warranty, 19 46 on statute of limitations Caton, J. Opinion on contract, Carpenter, J. Opinión on law of sureties, Circuit Court of District of Columbia, 66 Cranch, C. J. Opinion on Nugent's contempt, Conkling's Admiralty Practice, 468 187 530 17 on Constitutionality of laws submitted to popu- Crawford County Common Pleas, Church, President, opinion on rights of married women, Cruelty, what is, in divorce cases, Centre County Quarter Sessions, Cutting Timber, indictment, Constitution, amendment proposed, Counties, laws for erection left to vote of people, Compensation of Judges, Concealment of facts in purchase of goods, Dower and Covenant of warranty, Damages in tort, Dunlap's English Chancery Reports, vol. 19-notice of, - Day's Connecticut Reports, 2d edition, Duress of goods, when it vitiates a contract, Divorce case of Butler v. Butler, - Daniel J. Opinion on State laws taxing passengers, Denio's Reports, (N. Y.) Divorces, effect of granted, by Legislature, 387 389 414 414 481 487 - 501 545 19 93 Extra-territorial operation of laws, Edmonds, J. Opinion on allowance of per centage for delay, Gibson, Ch. J. Opinion, on fraud in certificate of acknowledgment Hayes, President. Opinion on law of Post-office advertising, 239, 249 Hyer and Sullivan, Hebard, J. Opinion on tenant's right to remove manure, History and law of habeas corpus, Habeas Corpus, history of, 304 - 430 477 - 517 528 |