Case Name: ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. MILLER
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-05
Citations: 1 Wright 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. MILLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. MILLER.
Guardian and ward — intent—investment—exceptions to report.
Where a guardian has had opportunity to show by his own oath or otherwise his inability to invest the money of his ward, but omits to do so, the court will not presume him unable to invest it, to excuse him from interest.
It will not aid such a presumption to show, that if the money had been invested in stocks then esteemed the best in the city, the loss might have been total.
An exception to the master’s calculation of interest, will not be allowed, if the error is in favor of the party excepting.
In Chancery. Exceptions to the report of the master made under the decretal order of the court: see 6 O. 118.
1. Because the master charged interest from the time the money came to the hands of the guardian, without allowing him time to invest it.
2. Because the master stated an interest account of the receipts and disbursements, instead of making rests.
Fox in favor of the exceptions.
V. Worthington contra.

Opinion:
BY THE COURT.
The respondent had the privilege of showing before the master his inability to invest the money of his ward, and. the master had power to examine him on oath. He made no effort to satisfy the master, that he could not invest, nor does he now attempt to show this, but asks the court to assume that he could not invest for a year or so; and one reason urged is that if he had in-563] ^vested in the best stocks in the city, it would have been a total loss, as all the banks have failed. As matter of history, we know money could be readily invested at 6 per cent, interest. The statement of the interest account by the master, in the way in which it is done, is more favorable to the respondent than the method he suggests in his exception.
The exceptions are disallowed.