Crosby v. Merriam
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Crosby was guardian of one Illingworth, a minor, of whom Merriam is administrator. In 1872, Crosby received $950 belonging to his ward. In August, 1882, he filed his account, charging himself with that sum as having always remained in his hands without increase or profit. Merriam, as administrator, asked that the guardian be charged with interest.
Read the full summary
Crosby was guardian of one Illingworth, a minor, of whom Merriam is administrator. In 1872, Crosby received $950 belonging to his ward. In August, 1882, he filed his account, charging himself with that sum as having always remained in his hands without increase or profit. Merriam, as administrator, asked that the guardian be charged with interest. Illingworth had disappeared before Crosby’s appointment as guardian, and no application was ever made for leave to invest the money. The probate court charged the guardian with interest from the date of receipt of the money. On appeal to the…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
It was the duty of the guardian, having money of his ward in his hands, to make the same productive by investment. Having neglected to do so, but retained the money many years, and no reason being shown to excuse the neglect, the guardian was properly charged with interest at the legal rate, after the lapse of a reasonable time (six months) for making investments. Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 John. Ch. 508; Karr’s Adm’r v. Karr, 6 Dana, 3; 1 *343Perry on Trusts, § 468 et seq.; Schouler on Domestic Relations, § § 353, 354. There is nothing in this case excusing the guardian from the duty of investing…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Karr's Administrator v. KarrCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- St. Paul Trust Co. v. StrongSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- In Re Guardianship of GlennCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985