Case ID: nc_16/html/0382-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Henderson Chief Jutice, Per Curiam. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David L. Ryan, v. Clement H. Blount, Ebenezer Pettigrew et al. ex’rs. of John Beasley,
    From Bertie.
    An award may be corrected for error in law, where it appears on its face that the arbitrators intended to decide according' to law, but have.made a mistake.
    Interest is not of course to be compounded in favor of a ward «gains: the executors of his guardian, but simple interest only is to be computed from the death of the latter, unless compound interest was received.
    Ordinarily, a guardian is to be charged with compound interest, but he may be exempted from it by proving that, after suitable oxer, tions, he was unable to realize it.
    No decree can be made against one on whom process has not been served, unless he has entered an appearance.
    The Plaintiff in his bill alleged, that David Ryan, his father, had died in the year 1802, having made a will •.vhcreby lie boquea! bed the whole of bis personal estate ■Jo the Plaintiff and another son, and appointed his wife Man] 3. llijan, executrix — -that the executrix never in any way manage"* the said estate, lint confided (he whole-ther* of to her brother John Beasley, the testator of the ^Defendants, who had also prora red himself 1o be appointed guardian of the Plaintiff- — ¡hat Beasley had never accounted for the assets of Ikivid, Mgan, winds had come to liis hands, neither had ise In any way settled his accounts, as guardian of the Plaintiff, nor made any returns, so as to enable the Plaint iff to charge him with the receipt of any precise sum. The prayer of the MM was for an account of David Jbjan’s personal estate, and also of the Plaintiff’s estate, received by the Dofeudaupg testator, as guardian.
    Process issued upon this bill, and was served <;n all. the Defendants but Feliigrew, who never entered his appearance»
    No answers were filed by any of the Defendant!!; but by an agreement, signed by t!n: Plaintiff and all the Defendants, except Pettigrew, the. matters in difference between the parties, were referred to arbitration.
    On the Fall circuit of 189.9, the arbitrators returned their award, accompanied by an account of the funds with which lite Ddradant’s testator was chargeable; from which it appeared, that they had ascertained that the sin» in the bands of the latter, due the Plaintiff, on the 1st of January, 1815, to be $2,236 03, upon which they had allowed the Plaintiff compound interest, up to the 1st of January, 1829, amounting in the whole to g 5,055 36.
    Upon the coming in of this award, before hio Honor Judge D antro, it was objected to the award by the Defendant’s Counsel, that the award should be set aside, as to that part thereof wherein the Defendants were charged li¡ the report made by the said arbitrators.» and filed in the cause, with compound interest from the 1st (lay of January, 1815, to the 1st day of January, 1829, and the said report being examined by the Court, and it ap-pearitig to the Court, that the Defendants «ere charged with compound interest, from the said 1st. day of January, 1815, to the said 1st day of January, 1829, (John Beasley, the guardian of Complainant, having died about the 1st day of January, 1815) and it appearing to the Court, that the arbitrators did so charge the Defendants with compound interest j and it appeal ing further to the Court, that the arbitrators undertook to decide ariord-lug to principles of law, and they mistook the law in so charging the Defendants with compound interest: It is ordered and decreed, that the award be set aside as to that part thereof, the Court bping of opinion, that the Defendants are chargeable with simple interest only, from the death of the guardian. And now a computation being made by consent at this term, charging the Defendants witli simple interest only, from the 1st day of January, 1815, whereby if appears that the sum of § 3,761 58, was due Complainant on the 1st day of January, 1829, according to the award, and according to that method of computation, of which sum §2.044 34 is principal j and it is ordered and decreed, that the award in all other matters and things be confirmed.
    Whereupon, it is ordered and decreed by the Court, that the Complainant, David L. Ryan do recover of the Defendants, Janies Iredell, Clement PL. Blount and Ebene-aer Pettigrew, executors of John Beasley, the said sum of §3,761 50. with interest, &c.
    From this decree, so far as it directed the award to be set aside, as to the compound interest charged the Defendants, the Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Gaston, for the Plaintiff.
    Hogg. for Pettigrew.
    
    
      Badger, for the other Defendant*»
   Henderson Chief Jutice,

after staling tlsí* raso as above proc' ed -d : — if in fact it (iid appear upon die av.ai d, where ;<!«;»■ the Court can look to to d if, find the »rbltraio»« decided according to Jaw, and urstook the Jaw, tbj error tnay be- corrected ; for thereby <ír* aw aid is nr i vstrh d from what the arbitrators intended, hot it la made to be what they designed it should h*. Bui no such toto.rf' appears upon the awsud, oroCwvrc* nn we can pci *.ni*.c. The Court must have come to that con-elusion by conjecture, or by evidence aliunde ; neither of -.v)iich sources will do, ft must plainly > :•••.»• «pon the, award j otherwise it is taken that the arbitrators intended to Ik* governed by their own rules or notions of right, Boil the law and the facts are referred to them. And where there is no fraud or mistake, tli« hitler to be ascertained as before stated, the award is ;,.;;ivo.. ll is it* their judgment as to bo h. that the parties confide. It in quite possible, nay, it is probable, thill (lie arbitrators intended to be governed by the law on the subject of interest. And if they did, the compounding of the interest, against the. Defendants as a matter of course was an error. For ahho’ ihev representen him who had been guardian, and who as such pruna fade was chargeable with compound interest, the compounding of the interest as a matter of course should cease with his guardianship. When Í say compounding interest ceases as a matter of course, I mean to say, that his executors arc not to he charged with compound interest, unless it is shown, that they had made if. Neither do I mean to say, that a guardian is in all cases to be charged with it. Ordinarily he is. But he may be exempted from it by showing that he has been unable to make it, after using his best exertions to do so. Why these arbitrators ebarg* d ¡he Defendants with compound interest we know no:, it might have been by mistake, it m«ghí be because the ward’s property produced st in then* hands. We cannot "therefore even say, that this award has not met the, ao f[5a] justice of tlio caso, according (o our own notions.-— Much ](.ñr¡ caij we say jt did not according to fi'c uní ions of the arbitrators, who arc judges of (nr pastiest’ own alcj(00gjn^ The decree must therefore be reversed, and decree accord tog (o (ho award, except so Far as it is a? Warded yearn.si Mr, Pettigrew, Against him íbero, can be no decree, nor can he. he otherwise affected by the decree, than the decree against his co-executors affects the assets of the estate. OF course it affects the asst is in his hands. Nor does the award affect the. other executors personally. The decree must therefore be against the assets in their hands. The question of assets is left entirely open.

Per Curiam. —

Decree of the- Court below reversed, and decree for Plaintiff for the sum of $6055 P6, with interest, &c. to be levied of the assets in the hands of the Defendants.