Jacot v. Emmett
New York Court of Chancery
This was art appeal from the sentence or decree of the surrogate of the city and county of New-York. The respondent, R. Emmett, was the administrator of T. Lynch, late of New-York, deceased, and the appellant was the personal representative of the wife of T. Lynch ; who survived him and who was entitled to one half of his personal estate.
Read the full summary
This was art appeal from the sentence or decree of the surrogate of the city and county of New-York. The respondent, R. Emmett, was the administrator of T. Lynch, late of New-York, deceased, and the appellant was the personal representative of the wife of T. Lynch ; who survived him and who was entitled to one half of his personal estate. The claim .made before the surrogate, against the respondent, was for interest on moneys which had been received by the respondent on account of his intestate, and which had not been invested. In September, 1840, the respondent stated and settled his…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
If the surrogate came to the right conclusion, from the testimony of E. II. Jacot the attorney, that the respondent had mixed the money belonging to the estate of his intestate with his own, and had used it, so that he had it not on hand when he was called on for payment, he might unquestionably have been charged with interest, according to the settled rule of this court in such cases. But a mere neglect by an administrator to invest moneys which he may be called upon to pay over to the distributees at any moment, would be no ground for charging him with interest, if the money…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Davison v. KlaessNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Hamilton v. . Van RensselaerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- In re Estate of StottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Southern Central Railroad v. Town of MoraviaNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- Price v. . HolmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.