The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1892-05-24

part OF the estate, and not income,
to which the widow is entitled I'M
der the will; and as such the exec
utors should have accounted for II.
1t seems to have disappeared IN the
accounts of the ranch, having been
treated as income. This amount /
must be charged against the widow
in favor of the estate, and, whereas,
the executors as such have had no |
hand in its collection or disposition,
they are not now entitled to COM
missions in regard to it.
In regard to the other large totals
of moneys reported, amounting to
$l54,885, OF received by I. Fl. Da-
vies & Co. on account of the ranch,
and S12O,742.62 received by F. A.
Schaefer & Co. on account of the
widow from the profits of the plan
tation, we consider that the latter
sum Is entirely outside of our juris-
/ diction in these proceedings and
consequently outside of the author
/ ity of the executors, it being the
fruit of private enterprise of the
widow carried on with her own pri-
vate resources except as to the $2l,-
! 900 received from Dreier, which
must be regarded, as stated above,
as a loan from the estate to her. If
| Mr. Widemann has rendered SER
vices in this enterprise beyond the
inception of it, or has handled
these funds, he has done so solely
as the agent of the widow and not
as an executor.
The 1854, $3.50 OF received by t. II.
Davies & Co. from the ranch bust
ness is on different footing from
the fund received from the partner
ship. While the will devises to the
widow the income of the estate for
her life, it authorizes the executors
to sell any portion of the estate
whenever they shall, in their dis
erection, deem it desirable for the
sake of reinYestment or for the sup
port of the widow and children.
II is not clear to us under the pro-
visions of the will, whether the
) widow is entitled to the possession
of the estate, CT whether the man.
agement devOlVes upon the eXecu-
tors; and the settlement of this
question is not now important. For
if the widow was entitled to the
possession, there would be no COM
Missions on account of the income,
and If the executors were author
lied to take possession and manage
the property they have not done so,
but have allowed a business firm to
attend to the financial management
and have themselves handled nc
part of these receipts as executors.
L. Fl. Davies & Co. have done the
work and have doubtless charged
and collected their compensation
therefor. The executors therefore
are not entitled to commissions
even if they had the right to re.
, ceive the moneys. We do not &C
so far as to hold that trustees Of this
character may not hire clerks oil
business agents to assist in carrying
on the business of the trust. Thi;
may be done in some circumstances
and often is inevitable, but where
trustees abandon the whole manage
ment of the trust to others they
may not claim commissions. TIL:
rule applies equally to trustee
who leaves the execution of trus
to his co-trustee. Persons called tx
be trustees should either decline
) the trust or execute it themselves
(Mason vs.. Roosevelt, > John, ch
54O.)
We therefore refuse the prayer 0
2 the petition on the showing mad,
and require the executors to fur
. nish an account in accordance here
4 with,
2 Honolulu, April goth, 1892.
F. M. Hatch for H. A. Wide
. mann, executor; Thurston & Frea