Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1922-01-30
Totals - S435,oOo ;1,o2S,36S.ss

Totals ...h $435, 900 ;1,o2s,36S.ss
Mrs. Hayward appealed to the superior
court from the allowances made by the |
Groton probate court on the ground tina |
Inc fe1s were excessive The appeal /
was heard by Judge Brown in the superior |
court at New London November 20, 1921. !
Judge Brown filed his memorandum of |
decision Saturday noon with the clerk Of |
tee superior court In this city.
The judges decision follows:
This is an appeal from an order and !
decree OF the probate court of Groton
accepting and allowing the modified ac-
count Of the executors of the will of
! Morton F. Plant, deceased.
During the argument of the case the !
/ appellants expressly abandoned any
claim under par. IL of their reasons of
appeal, alleging an allowance of pro-
! bate fees in excess Of the statute. Nor
| was any claim made under par. 10, al
| leging advances improperly made to the
/ appellee Sullivan, on account of execu-
tors fees, except in so far as the total
| so allowed was claimed to be exorbi-
| tant and in excess of his proper share
BY their brief and reply brief on file,
/ the appellants expressly abandoned any
cEim under par 5, alleging that the APP
/ Uellee, the United States Trust Co,
I|Should account for the entire amount Of
,fncome from funds of the estate on de-
posit with It. from November l. 1918 to
June l. 1921, except In so far as any
profit so realized by the trust company
lis factor to be considered in determin-
ing the compensation which It should be
=, awarded In my determination of It's
compensation below I have taken all of
| the evidence upon this point into consid-
Grafton.
| This corrt wac ra1uasted IN, ali ~ ~
parties. under agreement made by them
III IN open court, in fixing the amount of
| compensation Of the five executors to
4 cover the entire period Of their service
) M to the day Of this hearing which was
November 20. 1921, and 1 therefore pro
coed on that basis.
A careful consideration Of an Of the
levidence in the case has convinced me
T \ that while compensation in amount un-
Il usual from the standpoint of average
ri should be awarded here the amounts
i claimed as executors fees by the appel
i lees. the United States Trust Co. Shear
er and Sullivan. are far in excess Of the
responsible compensation. which the law
| Of this state prescribes for such service.
! am likewise satisfied that the amounts
= | fixed by the probate court as executors
J ! fees are very substantially in excess Of
| what can properly be allowed in this
. 4 case. Further, the matte extent and
I: value Of the service rendered by the sew
ersl executors differed and in some IN
5 4 stances at least differed very material
vi ly and the compensation OF each should
: he determined accordingly
One Of thf Ave was the testator's SON
another his widow. but neither 80 far as
appears was particularly qualified to
: administer this large estate; Sheldon
y who was president Of the Trust Co. and
/ the other two. on the other hand. were
r and for wears had been the testator',
n trusted advisers or business associate.
d and were familiar not only with his in
al | terests and financial problems but Will
, general financial and business condi-
J. | tons At the time when the will wa
q executed and at the testator's death an,
re Of his financial affairs were so involved
r. that apparently only the intelligent ex
r. ercise Of such extremely broad power
y, as were given the executors under III
81. VIII could have saved the estate from
nj tremendous losses. BY vote Of the frs
rd meeting Of the directors Nov. 20, 1915
ul and under a formal instrument of desis
v nation executed by all Of the executor
no Ffh. 5. 1919, pursuant to a power in tn
lie VII, the trust company. Sullivan an,
" snearer did the very great bulk Of til
ne work Of administering the estate invo1v
NIB ting the solution Of these problems Will
ISL The other two consulted with them fro,
tn time 10 time and attended the form;
ci-H monthly meetings Of the executors
tot Evidently the testator selected thes
he three who became the active execute,
Is, counting on their collective skill. exper
IT. ence and Judgment to solve these pro,
in lens with the huge amounts SO involve
De- BY their performance, of which r
-o- criticism Is made by the appellants. the
'u- EVIDENTLY functioned in the manner CO,
of templated by the testator.
er- While it IL doubtless true that ,
in compensation should be given for DIM
ne Gated service by executors that n ,s n
as useful. because It would not be reaxo
m able to do, all service, though the cha
rho fcter OF service was performde by mo
ms iran one. when II Is valuable. as was +
ex- combined knowledge. judgment and SIX
ng1 OF these three for this estate, should
1nliy comDen Ned because It Is reaso
Sanle to do so. 1t is also equitable a
sndd reasonable that, where there are Sc
eral executors as here. the compensate
ley allowed be proportioned according to t
win services rendered by each.
IL R. c. l.. 232. Sec. 25s; Hone
Jones "a Cal. 50. 90; speirs VS.. wisr
Der SO Mich s14, so N. W. s54.
Taft And this court may properly ann,
ton the compensation to the several {
ecutors in passing upon this account l
ron on this appeal. Bailey VS.. Strong
am Conn. ESQ; Pitl<in VS.. Pitkin Conn. 90
Ashmeads' appeal 81 Conn. 2H.24
Macks Appeal II Conn. 122.1s0; II
and vs. Pierson So Conn. 1872, 342, 81
Smart VS.. Fisher, Z Mo. $50.
Ball Taking into consideration theref
sell mat the gross amount, which pas.
through the executors hands was 81
ven 271.S14.s2, the amount of time and eff
expended by each executor, the dific
nan ty and conOlexity of the problems de
with including the raising under M
mix unusual financial conditions of betw,
s16.oo0,00o and $4,000, 900 to pay
debts of the estate, the broad powers .
and discretion granted the executors un,
iold the will the manner Of their exercise
orel the same. the results obtained and
Of the other circumstances and facts
Ga closed hy the evidence In the m ca &