Delaware tribune. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1867-1877, 1875-09-16

ARGUMEST OF AN INTERESTING CASE, LAST wEIE.
The Court Of Chancery, which has been in
session at New Castle since Monday, concluded
its buslnesss on Thursday aud adjourned.
Thursday, case was argued before the Chan
cellor which involves an interesting question
Of administration and guardian accounts.
The caac was q suit IN equity brought by Ed
win ii. reclIari, administrator d. b. NJ, c, t. a.
Of Henry j.. Packard, against John H. Price,
surviving executor under tho will Of Henry l..
Packard, and Francis \. Dunlap, administrator
Of Il. II. Dunlap, who was u deceased
executor under tue will Of Henry l.. PoCkard.
by his will. Henry ). feckafa, who died in 1853,
directed his executors to sell Il certain farm in
Pencaicr hundred on such terms az they dsemed
best. In 1867, the farm was sold to William
kirkley for si,S5O., $3.50. being paid in ca7h,
with which tie executors charged themselves in
their account They alec charged themselves
with the $1,000. remainder, although the money
was not actually received by them, but according
to tho terms Of the saie was LETT on bond and
mortgage $1,000. payable III five years and
$4,000 Ia ten years. In their accounts from
1867 to 1870, the executors continue TO charge
themselves with this large balance as due the
f-sse l.. p ss+s.ss@ -. i.ias ssr-1 -ti,\i s;iy
aratoxs payaNfo ~ ttic-r'-rrI
aud not as executors.
Francis ID, Dunlap died in March, 1870, and
Francis s. Dunlap, one OF The defendants III t,is
case, was appointed administrator. In August
of tho same year Jno. H. Price, surviving oXecu-
tor, was removed from his Office On his own Pc
tition by the Register Of Wills, aud the adrninis-
trdtion of the estate was granted to Edwin IL.
Packard, C. {. u. But before tho removal of
Price he and Francis s. Dunlap, as admnstra-
tors of Francis d. Dunlap, passed final account
before the Register, charging Themselves with
the balance due the estate, s3,0S1. Upon being
appointed administrator as above, Packard de-
m,tnded Of Price and Dunlap, in money, the bal
ance aB shown in their account. They refused
to pay over the money, but rendered the bonds
and mortgages received from hiilley, which he
refused to accept, the fact being That the deple-
citation III the value OF land lad rendered the Sc
curties probably worthless. The dispute not
being adjusted, this suit was hrougtt {" recover
tho above balance.
The defendants claim tlta5 they We're bound
only TO hand over the mortgages and bonds iii
settlement of their administration, and that the
taking OF them as individu0ls and not as eXeeu-
tors was mistake OF tho craftsman, and that
tho entry, charging themselves with the money,
instead of the bouds in the administrative ac-
count, was also a mistake, which euuld be lccti-
iie d in the Court Of Equity.
The Complainant, Oh the other hand, InaEtS
that tho leaving the securities in this manner,
and the charging by the executors OF themselves
with the money and interest on tito SAME IN
their accounts from 1867 to 1910 was not IN
error, but was dnnO deliberately and
purposely, and because tho executors chose
to assume all risk of shrnkage in tho value OF
the bonds and mortgages. Eut the Plaintiff
further claims, and tlIs is tho interesting point
in the case, that Price and Dunlap could not
correct their account in this Court, and could OIL
ly do it, if at all, before the Register that the
Constitution creating the Office OF Rosister and
the statutes for tho settlement of estates gave
exclusive jurisdiction to the settlement OF eSa-
cutors' accounts TO the Register, with an appeal
|. to the Orphans Court that they could not
question in this suit or in this Court the account.
as admitted by themselves and as settled by
the Register without an appeal to
| the Orphans Court or other claim by
| them that it was incorrect. The CouplGt-
paut also claimed that tho lOantn5 ont If tine
money in what proved to be inadequate security,
requiring 80 little Of the purchase money on the
farm TO lie paid in cash, and making the remain
der payablg at such long periods, WAS an eN-
erciHe OF discretion by the executors so neEll-
gent and wanting in care as to make them per-
scnally liable for the loss TofuliirE thereircni.
The Chancellor reselvei biA decision. ArLho-
ny Higgins, ESD, represented sAo plaint!il, aud
Hon. Ihos. L. BRyagd and George Gray the de-
| ffTInDtE