Case Name: In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of James Thomson, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of William Anderson, deceased; In the Matter of the Application of James Thomson, Executor, Etc., for the Revocation of his Letter his Resignation as Trustee and Settlement of his Account as Executor and Trustee
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-02-13
Citations: 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 615
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of James Thomson, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of William Anderson, deceased. In the Matter of the Application of James Thomson, Executor, Etc., for the Revocation of his Letter his Resignation as Trustee and Settlement of his Account as Executor and Trustee.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 14
Pages: 615–618

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of James Thomson, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of William Anderson, deceased. In the Matter of the Application of James Thomson, Executor, Etc., for the Revocation of his Letter his Resignation as Trustee and Settlement of his Account as Executor and Trustee.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 13, 1888.)
Executors and administrators—Accountings—Failure to collect NOT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE EXECUTOR WITH NEGLECT OF DUTY.
On accounting of the executor, it appeared that the Noble mortgage, with which he was sought to be charged, was a second mortgage, and was given to the testator in his life-time. The first mortgage was foreclosed and the property did not bring enough to pay this. The executor pushed the mortgagor and did get some money from him on account of interest hut the security was bad and could not be forced. Judgment was obtained on the bond, and that failed to realize anything upon inquiry in supplementary proceedings. _ Feld, that these facts should mitigate the rule that a failure to collect is a devastavit. A failure to collect is not alone sufficient to charge an executor with neglect of duty.
Appeal from a decree of the surrogate’s court, at Kings county, made and entered herein on the 24th day of October, 1887, removing the said James Thomson, as executor and trustee under said will, and settling his accounts as such executor and trustee. By this decree it- was determined that there still remained in the hands of the said executor and trustee the sum of $14,641.60 of principal and $7,275.01 of income to be accounted for. The executor and trustee appeals from said decree.
Benj F. Kissam, for appl’t; Jackson & Burr, for Mrs. Anderson, et al. Geo. L. Fox. special guardian.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
There was no evidence to justify charging the executor with the Roble mortgage. It was a second mortgage, and was given to the testator in his life-time. The first mortgage was foreclosed, and the property did not bring enough to pay this. The executor pushed the mortgagor, and did get some money from him, on account of interest, but the security was bad and could not be forced, and the executor did wisely in refraining from attempting it by foreclosure. Judging from the result of the foreclosure of the first mortgage, these acts should mitigate the rule that a failure to collect is a devastavit. The evidence is still more unsatisfactory in respect to the Clinton B & M. There was only a small balance due on this security. This property was sold under a first mortgage, and did not bring sufficient to pay it.
Judgment was obtained on the Roble bond, and that failed to realize anything upon full inquiry in supplementary proceedings. Ro evidence whatever was given to impeach, contradict or vary this evidence, A failure to collect is not alone sufficient to charge an executor with neglect of duty. Woolley v Baldwin, 101 N. Y., 688
The evidence is fully sufficient to justify the expenditure for repairs in the Knit street property. It was out of repair. " It was barely inhabitable "nobody could live in them." The land, and the money put on it, belonged to the same person, and it is plain that the value of the realty was increased to a greater extent than the money put on it. Even assuming that an order to make the repairs before they were made would have been proper, a judicious expenditure should not be cast upon the executor for a mere form. f the act was done in good faith, and for the benefit of the estate, as well approve of it as if the approval was given beforehand. There are other questions in the 'case which are or may be raised upon a new trial. The finding of neglect being unsupported by evidence, the question of commissions need not be passed upon further than to say that double commissions were not proper. The case seems to be the same as Johnson v. Lawrence, 95 N.,Y., 154.
The decree should be reversed, and a new trial granted with cost to executor out of estate.
Dykman, J., concurs.