Beverleys v. Miller
Beverleys v. Miller
Opinion of the Court
February 4th, 1818, Judge Roane pi'onounced this Courts’ Opinion.
is of opinion, that, as Elizabeth L. Beverley, who defended this suit for her infant children, had been appointed their guardian by the County Court;
The Court is also of opinion, that the decree in this case is further erroneous, in this; that, under it’s particular circumstances, no interest ought to be allowed on the one hand, or commissions on the other, except interest oirthe balance found due to the trustee; and that the charge of 18l. 12s. 8d. for sundry articles sold and casli lent, from 1784 to 1787, with interest thereon, being before the creation of the trust, ought not to have been allowed by the Commissioner without proof thereof by disinterested testimony. The Coui’t is also of opinion, that the rents of the real estate belonging to the trustfund, unless the same were paid to Bobert G. Beverley in his life time, or his widow after his death, for tlieir maintainance and the education of the children, ought either to have been collected by the trustee William Miller, and credit therefor given; or that fund, if notheretoforepaid, by the Tenant or Tenants as aforesaid, either to the cestuy que trusts, or Trustee, ought now to he resorted to and applied, in the first place, to discharge the balance due the Trustee; in exoneration of the Land.
The Decree therefore, so far as it conflicts with this opinion, is reversed, with costs, and the residue thereof affirmed; and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court to be finally proceeded in according to the principles above declared.
Note. This fact appeared .by an Exhibit in the record.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Beverleys against Miller
- Status
- Published