Case Name: Drake and wife v. Price
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1851-09
Citations: 5 N.Y. 430
Docket Number: 
Parties: Drake and wife v. Price.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 403–406

Head Matter:
Drake and wife v. Price.
Executors’ commissions.'
"When a trust is annexed to the office of executor, he is not entitled to double commissions, first, as executor, and then, as trustee. Drake v. Price, 7 Barb. 388, affirmed.
Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the second district, where a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, upon demurrer to the complaint, had been affirmed. (Reported below, 7 Barb. 388.)
This was an action against the executors of Gilbert Hunter, deceased, to recover a sum of money, which they had withheld from Mrs. Drake, a legatee under the will of their testator, by way of commissions. Robinson, one of the defendants, died, after the judgment below.
The complaint alleged that the defendants were the sole acting executors of the last will and testament of Gilbert Hunter, deceased; that in said will, the testator, among other things, directed his executors to place and keep $6000 at interest, as the share of Julia Ann Smith, now the above plaintiff, Mrs. Drake, and to receive such interest, and pay the same over, yearly and every year, to her, during her natural life, and then to divide the principal among her lawful heirs. That the defendants had had the said $5000 invested, since the decease of the testator, in the year 1842, and had received the annual interest thereof, to wit, the sum of $300 per annum, since that time, and had paid part of such sum to the said Julia Ann, but had unlawfully retained and withheld a large part of said annual interest, to wit, $12 each year, and had neglected and refused to pay any or either of such sums of money to the said Julia Ann; and the plaintiffs averred, that the said executors had received and paid out more than $10,000 belonging to the estate of the testator, besides the said $5000 invested for the said Julia Ann Drake, and had been allowed and had received the sum of five per cent, on the first $1000 thereof, and two and a half per cent, on the next $4000 thereof; and although legally entitled to claim and receive but one per cent, on all above, including the annual interest payable to the said Julia Ann, yet *^6y an(^ retained the sums aforesaid, being five per cent, thereon, contrary to the statute in such case provided. And the plaintiffs claimed judgment for the sum of $85.23, being the aggregate amount of such sums, with the interest thereon.
The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground, that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendants, or of the subject-matter; and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court, at special term (Barculo, J.) gave judgment for the plaintiff, on the demurrer, which having been affirmed at general term, the surviving executor, Price, took this appeal.
Hill, for the appellant.
Beardsley, for the respondent.
Hall v. Hall, 18 Hun 358.

Opinion:
Foot, J.
The material question in this cause is, whether the appellant and his deceased co-executor held the funds as executors, or as trustees, or, in other words, whether, as executors, they had paid it over to themselves, as trustees, and held it in the latter character. The same question arose on a similar clause in a will, in the case of Valentine v. Valentine (2 Barb. Ch. 430), and Chancellor Walworth decided, that the executors held the funds in their character of executors, and not as trustees. His decision appears to me to be sound, and in accordance with, the provisions of the will. Holding the fund, and receiving and paying over the interest, as executors, the appellant and his co-executors are *clearly entitled to only one per cent, on the interest received and paid.