The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-03-31

first mortgage upon the property and |
franchise of the .. X. * l.. Co., ana |
are commonly known as the Pearl |
River Division bonds. \ similar IN
vestment was approved by the JUS
tees of the Supreme Court IN the
estate of Lunalilo, and / find no rea-
son for not following that suggestion.
1t was shown that the earnings OF the
company were derived largely from
freight.produced by the Eva planta-
ton, and it was cOntended that IL that
plantation should suspend there
would be no further need for the rail-
road, but, as before stated, L decline
to discuss the possibilities OF the future
to that extent. 1t was further
shown that the Company might have
been forced into bankruptcy If press
ed by its creditors, but that was not
it's condition at the time the invest
ments were made nor would ii neces-
sarily render the bonds worthless nor
depreciate their value to any great
extent. The question is, is the prop
erty covered by the mortgage appar-
emily good security for the bonds, and
was it so considered by prudent men.
/ think this question should be an
swered in the affirmative. The next
on the list are the bonds of the IA
huku Plantation. We must admit
| that our actions are controlled and in
| fiuenced by the acts of others i'll whom
we put confidence. This was not a
venture solely of Mr.. Aliens, but
others were interested with him,
among whom were Messrs. Allen q
Robinson, Bishop d Co., Grinbaum q
Co. and James Campbell. The mort
gage given for the security of these
| bonds covered the entire property of
Il - ranroSnntinB ont.
| Law of over S500,00G and the issue of
| bonds was limited to S135, 900. L see
| no reason to doubt this security. The
| only loss that the estate has suffered
| is that of the UniOn Iron Works Com
pany bonds, amounting to S2,2OO ana
| u prospective loss on the Seattle
Building Company bonds which may,
| in view of the evidence be considered
a loss. Both of these investments
were made by Mr.. S. NJ. Damon,
| whom Mr.. Allen had selected to act
| for him during his absence from the
| country. Certainly Mr.. Allen eXer-
| cised due care and sound discretion in
| selecting one who has for so long a
| time occupied such prominent
| place in the financial circle Of the
| country. The same rule applies to
| Mr.. Damon's conduct as to Mr.. Allen,
and it would require the clearest
proof of neglect to justify finding
| that Mr.. Damon had failed to eXer-
| else due care and prudence in making
| these investments. The Will author
| lied investments in the United States
as well as in this country, and Mr..
| Damon found it almost Impossible,
| although holding a position that kept
| him in constant touch with the imam
| cial public, to place money that was
accommodating in this country where
| it would earn interest. Mr.. Damon
| followed the lead of the late
H. A. p. Carter in the Seattle in
vestment, who invested large sum
i'm that enterprise; and in the Union
Iron Works bonds investments were
made by the Treasurer of Queen
Emma Legacy Fund, Bishop Il Co.,
and G.. n. Wilcox; and although
both of these investments have proved
unfortunate and have resulted Ill a
loss, vet do not find such state OF
facts as would justify me in placing
the burden upon the administrator.
| One word as to the general steward
ship of Mr. Allen. 1t was suggested
by counsel for the benefciaries that
ample securities could have been had
at the time these investments were
made at from four to five per cent, IN
| timatipg that such Investments would
have been proper and satisfactory to
the estate. If Mr. Allen had adopted
that course it would have resulted IN
his having realized for the estate ia
the Way of income a little more than
S45, 900, instead of the $4,000 which
he has secured, the difference being
/ much more than the losses COM
plained of. :,
Thirdly-As to the rule to be applied
in fixing the commission to be allowed
the administrator. On filing his first
account about year after his APP
pointment Mr.. Allen credited himself
with the sum of 81, $500 as commls-
sions. being at the rate of ten, seven
and five per cent on S155, l3S. Us, the
amount of capital received. MIR.
RAINING was present in court when
the account was approved, and made
no objection. Mr.. Hatch claims that
that account was finally settled and
was practically the end of the admin
istration of the estate, and that Mr..
Allen was entitled to his commissions,
and that he has since acted in the
capacity of trustee, and that the ind
ing of Judge Preston, approving the
accounts is now res ju0icdt0.
think not. This was not hnal ac-
count within the meaning of our
practice, nor was any particular item
in controversy so "a. 10 raise an Issue
to be tried and determined, nor was
the point expressly waived, which
understand to be be essential IN order
that finding may become res Ju01'
cdtd. ,oo
In Field VS.. Hitchcock, ii Pick. 406
Shaw, e. J., said: "On an appea
from the decree of the Judge of Pro
, bate the question is whether the set
, ! Element OF a former account by an ex
, ecutor can be pleaded as a tina
) account so as to secure him from rem
/ dering a further account when cItet
! for that purpose, AMI not only preclude
, the PROBATE Court from any furthe
adjudication, but from all further in
: uuiry. The Court are of opinion tina
[ it was not competent for the Probat
s | C,,rt IN decide that aDV account q