Wilmington daily commercial., 1875-09-10
SECOND EDITION.
Court of Chancery.
PROBABLE ADJOURNMENT, To-DAY-ARGUMENT OF
AZ INTEREsTINa oAsE. YEsTERDAY.

PROBABLE ADJOURNMENT, To-DAY-ARGUMENT OF
Az INTERESTING GAZE, YESTERDAY.
Tie Court OF Chancery, which has been in
session at New Castle since Monday, will proba-
bly, conclude its buslnesss to-day and adjourn.
Yesterday, case was argued before the Chan
cellor which involves an interesting question
of administration and guardian accounts.
Tho case was a suit IN equity brought by Ed
win III. Packard, administrator d. b. H., C. t. a.,
of Henry IL. Packard, against John II. Price,
surviving executor under the will of Henry l..
Packard, and Francis s. Dunlap, administrator
of II. ID. Dunlap, who WAS II deceased
executor under the will of Henry Il. Packard.
by his will, Henry s. Packard, who died in 1865,
directed his executors to sell a certain farm in
Pencader hundred on such terms as they deemed
best. In 1867, the farm was sold to William
Klrkley for 1850, $3.50. being paid in cash,
with which tile executors charged themselves in
their account. They also charged themselves
with the $1,000. remainder, although the money
was not actually received by them, but according
to the terms OF the sale WAS loft on bond and
mortgage, $1,000. payable in five years and
S3,0UO in ten years. In their accounts from
1867 to 1870, the executors continue to charge
themselves with this large balance as duo the
estate and interestfon the game. Tho bonds and
mortgages given by Krklev were taken by tho
executors AZ payable to themselves individually
and not as executors
Francis ID, Dunlap died in March, 1870, and
Francis s. Dunlap, one of tho defendants in this
case, was appointed administrator. In August
of the same year Jno. H. Price, surviving execu-
tor, was removed from his office on his own Pc
titlon by the Register Of Wills, and the admins
trdtion of the estate was granted to Edwin IL.
Packard, @. t. a. But before the removal of
Price he and Francis s. Dunlap, as administra-
tors of Francis ID. Dunlap, passed final account
before the Register charging themselves with
tile balance due the estate s3,080. Upon being
appointed administrator as above, Packard de-
manded of Price and Dunlap, in money, the bal
ance as shown in their account. They refused
to pay over the money, but rendered the bonds
and mortgages received from Kirkley which he
refused to accept, the fact being that the depre-
citation III the value of land had rendered the Sc
curities probably worthless The dispute not
being adjusted, this suit was brought to recover
the above balance.
The defendants claim that they were bound
only to hand over the mortgages and bonds in
settlement of their administration, and that the
taking of them as individuals and not as execu-
tors was mistake of the craftsman, and that
tho entry, charging themselves with the money,
instead of the bonds in the administrative ac-
count, was also mistake, which could be recti-
fed i'll the Court OF Equity.
The Complainant on the other hand, insists
that tho leaving the securities in this manner,
and the charging by the executors of themselves
with the money and interest the same in
their accounts from 1867 TO 1870 was not an
error, but was done deliberately and
pufpObely, anu DecauBo Inc executors CQO5o
to assume all risk of shrinkage in the value of
the bonds and mortgages. But the Plaintiff
further claims, and this is the interesting point
in tho case, that Price and Dunlap could not
correct their account in this Court, and could on
ly do it, if at all, before the Register that the
Constitution creating the office of Register and
the statutes for the settlement OF estates give
exclusive jurisdiction to the settlement of exc
cutors accounts to the Register, with an appeal
to the Orphans Court 1; that they could not
question in this suit or in this Court the account
az admitted by themselves aud as settled by
the Register without an appeal to
tho Orphans Court or other claim by
them that it was incorrect. The Complai-
pant also claimed that the loaning out of the
money in what proved to be inadequate security,
requiring go little of the purchase money on the
farm to be paid in cash, and making the remain
der payable at such long periods, was an ex-
ercise of discretion by the executors so negli-
gent and wanting in care as to make them per-
sonally liable for the loss resulting therefrom.
The Chancellor reserved his decision. Antho
ny Higgins, Esq, represented the plaintiff, and
Hon. Thos. +. Bayard and George Gray tie de-
PENDANTS.