Judges: PER CURIAM.
Attorneys: John G. Baker and Campbell Thornal, for Appellants.
G.P. Garrett, for Appellees.
Filed: Feb. 04, 1937
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: This is the third appeal in this cause. A complete statement of the facts will be found in the first appeal decided December 30, 1936, and in the second appeal decided this date. The single question involved here is predicated on the decree of the chancellor allowing compound interest on the balance shown from the accounting to be due from the trustee to the trust estate. In the second appeal the chancellor held that the Bass, Black and Garvin mortgages were purchased by the trustee personally b
Summary: This is the third appeal in this cause. A complete statement of the facts will be found in the first appeal decided December 30, 1936, and in the second appeal decided this date. The single question involved here is predicated on the decree of the chancellor allowing compound interest on the balance shown from the accounting to be due from the trustee to the trust estate. In the second appeal the chancellor held that the Bass, Black and Garvin mortgages were purchased by the trustee personally bu..
More
On petition for rehearing, it is urged that the refusal of this court to adjudicate the charges of bad faith and mismanagement charged against the trustee was error in that such charges were contemplated in the final decree adjudicating the rights of the parties filed February 8, 1936, from which appeal was prosecuted.
We do not so interpret the final decree. The bill of complaint charged the trustee with bad faith in the investment of and in permitting defaults, assessments, and other charges to accumulate against the trust fund. We held that the charge was not sustained as to the investment of the trust fund but declined to adjudicate further.
It follows that if the trustee after investment negligently permitted charges of any kind to accumulate against the trust fund or otherwise negligently handled or administered the trust he is responsible and can be required to account to the beneficiary therefor. This is a matter that should have been taken into account and considered in connection with the accounting.
The rehearing is denied.
ELLIS, C.J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD and DAVIS, J.J., concur.
