Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-04-30
of every principle of right and justice recog-

Of every principle Of right and justice recOg-
nlzed and enforced by the law.
81. That regular returns received and APP
proved by the Ordinary are only DTinld Jdcte
evidence in favor of the administrator or his
securities, win not be questioned; and there ls
just as little doubt that others made out with
view Of presenting them, but which
were never received or approved by the Or
dlnary-some of them not even Verlhed-wnlle
they may be used as admissions by the plain
TN IN this action, are not evidence IN FAVOR OF
the defendants or of their principal, unless
their correctness is satisfactorily proven by
other testimony
1t was made the duty Of the administrator
Dy law to keep these accounts, 10 support
them by proper vouchers, and to present them
annually for examination and approval BY the
proper authority, and no one but himself and
those engaged for his fidelity could suffer det-
rlment or injury in consequence OF his failure.
1T is an imperative duty OF an accounting
party, whether an agent, a trustee, a recelver,
or an eXecutor'-fOr in this respect, as was
remarked bv the Lord Chancellor in Lord
Hardwlck vs.. Vernon, they all stand IN the
same situatiOn-''to keep his accounts in
guar manner ana 70 pc always reaay WIN
ms accounts. Neglect Of this duty IS ground
Tor charging him with interest on balances m
his hands and with cost"
SO atrustee and executor is bound to render
every necessary information that is required
Of him; and he who. undertaking to give in
formation, gives but half information, in the
view OF Court Of Chancery, cOnceals; II he
have not all the information necessary, he is
bound to seek for it, and if practicable. to OBJ
tam IT. Spence's EQ. Jur., 92l. This glar-
ing omission Of duty can scarcely be supplied
by an attempt to prove qadntum nteruit as
to board in tins case by the keeper of a hotel
Questionable city boarding house, who it is
fair to infer furnished much more sumptuous
rare than the plaintiff is shown by this record
TO have received from this administrator, and
by similar proof as to other things alleged but
not proven to have been furnished.
II this is good law, and we entertain no
doubt that it is, it follows that there was error
chqponC nyannfnn n
How far this omission may be supplied by
proper prOof of this character we do not fully
determine. The character and quality of the
board furnished, of the clothing, ETC., sup
Piled, may be proven by one acquainted with
the worth Of them at the various times when
furnished But the amounts allowed as
credits on this account must not exceed the
annual income of the plaintiffs property
during his minority; and if he rendered any
service to the administrator or his wife in
keeping bar or shop, or in any other way, the
value of such services must be deducted from
the defendants charges for supplies. If all
the income from his estate was not consumed
in this way, then the defendant must likewise
account for the excess.
4th. We do not think, that the plaintiff adj
mtted on the stand as claimed by defendants
counsel, his willingness to pay the demand set
up by them, for his board, maintenance, etc.
He only expressed perfect willingness to allow
the defendant such an amount, as he would
have been willing to have allowed the admin
istratOr for support, maintenance and educa-
would be reasonable and proper for what he
furnished while he lived. lie thought the
services rendered the administrator and his
family worth his food and lodging.
9th. The plaintiff put in evidence an incOm-
pete return of the defendant as an admis-
sion. This return had folded in it various
therein. These papers he objected to putting
in as his evidence, but was com
PEELED by the court, over his protest, to do so,
upon the idea that they were a part of the
admission. In this, we think, there was error.
The rule upon the subject is,
that ovid when an admission tho Is given
the opposite party to have the whole Of it and
everything connected Herewith Code 1891.
That is, when the plaintiff had given in the
return as an admission, if the defendant could
have shown that the enclosed papers were
either part of the admission or were con-
nected Herewith, they might have given them
in. The plaintiff declined to do so because he
desired to assail them, which he could not
have done had he made them his evidence.
9th. We perceive no error in admitting tes-
timony to sustain the credit of the witnesses
for either side, whose veracity had been as
sailed in any of the modes pointed out in the
Code.
7th. We deem it unnecessary to notice other
exceptions in the record. Under the circum-
tances it would be improper to enter into an
analysis of the testimony and to specify more
particularly than we have already done, why
the verdict should be set aside and a new trial
granted, because it is contrary to law and to
the evidence.
Judgment reversed.
Denmark & Adams attorneys for plaintiff in
error; Chisholm Il Erwin. r. r. Richards, p.
j. OConnor, attorneys for defendants in error.
CLERKS OFFICE,
SUPREME COURT OF georgia.
ATLANTA, GA, April 26, 1884.
hereby certify that the foregoing pages
hereto attached contain a true and complete
copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court of
the State of Georgia in the case therein stated,
as appears from the original now of file in this
office.
~ Witness my signature and the seal
OF said court hereto affixed, the
}SEAL day and year above written.
z. ID. HARRISON.
~ Clerk S. c. Ga.