Robertson v. Wendell
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from so much of the decree of the vice chancellor of the third circuit as related to the general costs of the cause. In 1829 the complainant, an old man of eighty years of age, a neighbor of the defendant, left with him several bonds and mortgages and other securities, for safe keeping merely, and to receive payments thereon when the same were voluntarily offered, and to retain the monies until called for.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from so much of the decree of the vice chancellor of the third circuit as related to the general costs of the cause. In 1829 the complainant, an old man of eighty years of age, a neighbor of the defendant, left with him several bonds and mortgages and other securities, for safe keeping merely, and to receive payments thereon when the same were voluntarily offered, and to retain the monies until called for. Several sums were received by the defendant on these securities, and deposited in the bank, in -his own name, where he always had a deposit more than sufficient to pay…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
Under the circumstances of this case, I think the decree was clearly wrong in charging the defendant with costs; and the only doubt I have is upon the question whether the defendant is not entitled to the costs of his defence, to be paid out of the fund. The conduct of the defendant in relation to the trust has been perfectly fair and blameless, except in the single point of neglecting to furnish the solicitor with a statement of the securities in bis hands, within a reasonable time after the receipt of his letter. But as that letter did not contain any request to have the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Butterworth v. PeckThe Superior Court of New York City · 1859