Court Opinion

ID: 9527936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:43.752442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:17.876340
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, J.,
dissenting in part.
I think the chancellor was in error in not charging the executors with simple interest on the large sums of money held by them undistributed and uninvested. In my opinion there is no legal justification for the long delay. The executors were fiduciaries and commanded a dominant position. Mere acquiescence on the part of the heirs should not relieve the executors of their duty to distribute the estate within a reasonable time. A discussion of the authorities upon which I base this dissent would serve no useful purpose; but anyone interested may find the applicable rules of law, established by the weight of authority, in the annotation following the case of American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee v. Eisenberg, 70 A. 2d 44, 18 A. L. R. 2d 1380. I may add that it is not difficult to defer to the majority opinion *901which was reached after lengthy and scrupulous consideration.
I also dissent to the reversal of the case on cross-appeal for the allowance of fees to the executors. The executors should not be allowed compensation. Otherwise T concur with the majority.