The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-03-18
LOCAL MATTERS.

ERATs- CONTRACT DECISION FROM raE sUPREAs
CoURT.-Iu the case OF Tosh Us. Robertson,
decided BY the Supreme Court OF Appeals on
THURSDAY, the Court held, Judge Christian
delivering the opinion, that an executor di-
rected by the will Of his testator 10 the year
1860 10 sell bis real estate and divide the
proceeds among his infant children who
made the sale in 1860, taking bonds from
the purchasers payable in May and Novem-
her. 1861. and who collected these bonds in
1S63-'64 in Confederate money, most OF
which was deprecated to the extent Of
tIenty-seven dollars for one dollsr, was
guilty of devastavit and breach OF trust.
The Court also held that the purchasers who
paid their bonds for the purchase money OF
the said lands participated with the executor
in the breach of trust committed by him,
and are also responsible to the infsnts for the
full amount OF the purchase.money In a
sound currency. 1t appeared in this case
that the obligations of the purchasers,
amounting TO S5,6Q2, were discharged by
the payment of S4S2. 1t was held that the
conduct Of the executor in receiving deOts
contracted to he paid IN gold or its equlVa'
lent deprecated to so great an extent was
so grossly negligent and such reckless
sacrifice Of the interests of the infants Whom
the testator bad committed to bis care ana
protection, both rs executor and trustee, rs
to constitute fraud in law, and cannot be
tolerated tor moment in court OF equity.
There could be no justification or excuse Tor
an executor guilty Of so gross negligence
and palpable fraud. The Court said, but the
main question Is, Did the purchasers, IN
falling to pay their debts when they became
due 10 May and November, 1864, and insist.
ing on paying them in 1863 '64 IN an almost
worthless currency, participate 10 The
deYastavit of the executor, and the
breach of trust committed by him,
SO as to make them liable to the
infants for the land they got and never paid
forl We think they did. We do not mean
to say that in every case where an execu or
may be held liable as committing deVasta.
Wit for collecting good debt, we'll secured
and payable In gold, in appreciated cur.
rency, that the party ,oho pays ihe debt is
necessarily liable as participating in such de.
fault or fraud Of the executor. On the
contrary, there may be cases where the
collection of debt in deprecl-
a,ed currency would not be devastayit
For it often happens that he (he debtor)
does not know, and is not generally bound 10
irouire, what may be the necessities Of The
estate represented by the executor. For
aught he knows the debt which he pays may
nav debt due from the estate, or pay a
legacy which legatee may be willing to re.
| lieve in deprecated currency. But this Is
not The case before US. Here is not the case
simply Of collection OF debt due to the
testator, but the dealing is directly between
the executor and the defendants as seller
and purchaser, vendor and vendee. These
| defendants are in default in not paying
| the bends when they became due In the cur
rency which they agreed to pay, and Ia pay
| ing to the agent Of the executor q worthless
currency for the lands of thee iafants, for
| which they agreed 10 pay gold. In other
| words, they hold the lands Of these infants
for which they have not paid one tenth
of their value. They have taken in and
cancelled their bonds, amountingt to upwards
Of $4,000, by paying to the executor some
thing over $400. Suppose the executor had
sold these bonds, and, for instance, suppose
be had sold Jacobs'S bond for $500 for $ls
would not both seller and buyer have beer
held liable for 80 gross and palpable fraud
Practically, this was just what was done
Jscobs paid but $l8 tor his obligation o
| $500, and both be and the executor must Of
| held liable for this gross fraud upon tht
| rights Of the infants, in which they bosf
| participated. The Court is therefore OF opln
ion that the facts proved are such as clearly
| to charge the executor with deVastavi
and breach of trust. and the purchasers witt
participation In and responsibility for The
same. The Court therefore affirmed the de-
cree OF the Circuit Court Of Pittsy ylvania.