Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-05-17
IMPORTANT GHANCERy DECISION.
William Allen Wins His Suit Against
James Leach.

! -.----
Chancellor wolcott's Important Decision
Thursday, Upsetting the Practice Of 81
1ears-Afiecting administrators, lex.
! ecutOrs and Guardians accounts.
Chancellor Wolcott, sitting as the pre-,
siding officer Of the orphans court, rem,
Icred his decision on Thursday in the
case OF William Allen VS.. James Leach
administrator d. b. II. C. I, a. of William
Allen, deceased. The decree is in favor
of William Allen.
Senator Higgins and Philip @.
| Churchnan represented Leach, and
Robert e.. Hartman and j. Harvey
\ Whlteman represented William Allen,
The case is briefly as follows vii.
liam Allen, father Of the plaintiff, died
about tho year 1859 and left a will. DIR.
| Robert Graves was named as executor.
Graves removed to Pennsylvania and
James Leach was then appointed ad.
mlnistrator, 4. b. H., C. t. Il.
Leach passed two accounts, one in
1878 and the other In 1886. Prior to the
! passing OF the first account, certain
portion Of the Allen estate, called the
Spring Grove Farm, was sold, and the
money paid over to Leach. Leach placed
the money in the private banking firm
of James MCLear & Son, in his own
private name us "Jamcs Leach"
About two years later, in 1878, the
bank failed. When it failed, Leach
appeared in person and proved and
claimed the money he had deposited
there as his own, and received two
checks, drawn to his own order, for 25
per cent of the amount he DEPOSITED
that being the amount the assignee of
tho bankrupt firm was able to pay out.
When Leach passed his 1886 account,
he failed to credit the estate with the
sum placed in the above bank, or even
penny of what he got out.
This, with few minor items, was the
gist of the plaintiffs exceptions. lie
claimed Leach was liable for the amount
lost by the bank, and that he had for
feited his commissions for the following
reasons
|. The will ordered the money to be
secured on bond and mortgage and Leach
placed 1t in private bank.
=. lie let IL remain III bank for two years
longer than there was any necessity for
.. He deposited as James Leach, y
whereas he should have done 1t as James
Leach, administration"
To this Senator Higgins pleaded the
statute of limitations, three wears, and
Messrs. Hartman and Wbiteman replied
with the constitution of the State OF
Delaware, which says: "Written notice
shall he given by the administrator, &C.,
to those interested within three months
after the accounts are passed, that they
arc on record.
The plaintiffs attorneys contended
that the statute of limitations either con-
ilicts with the constitution or is incor-
porated in il.
If it conflict with il of course the
statute is void. If it be incorporated in
it then the giving of the three months
written notice is a condition precedent
to the running of the statute of limita-
tons.
II one fail to give this notice he acts
at his peril and must bear the conse-
quences. Were it otherwise one could
violate his duty, commit breach of
trust and then take advantage of his
own wrong by trumping up the statute
of limitations as shield.
This would be fragrant injustice and
would be placing premium upon fraud
and so the Chancellor decided.
The result of this decision is that all
persons who have acted as executors,
administrators or guardians, and have
failed to give the three months written
notice as required by the constitution,
to those interested are at this moment
still liable to have their accounts at
tackled and excepted to by those who
charge that the accounts are erroneous
or fraudulent.