In re Estate of Stott

The final account, settled May 13th, 1869, and unappealed from, was conclusive, and no testimony was admissible touching the moneys of the estate previous to said date. (Probate Act, sec. 237, Code C. P. sec. 1637; lihoad’s Appeal, 3 Wright, 186 ; Shind’s Appeal, 7 P. F. Smith, 45; Jacot v. Emmet, 11 Paige, 142 ; Mix, Admr. v. Heirs of Smith, 8 Vt. 365 ; Jennison v. Hapgood, 7 Pick. 1 ; Blount v. Darrach, 4 Wash. C. C. 657 .)

While in certain specified cases Courts of Equity have exercised their authority to decree the jiayment of interest by executors, these cases have been almost uniformly where the executors have used the funds and made profit therefrom.

That power does not exist in the Probate Court, and the facts of this case would not in any event justify the exercise of it.

Interest is not chargeable where, as is said in Jacot v. Emmett, 11 Paige, 145 , “ the money was kept in bank, or otherwise ready to be paid over, when called for.” (Easier v. Easier, 1 Bradf. 252 .)

“ No trustee will in general be held responsible for interest upon the trust fund unless he has actually received it.” (2 Redfield on Wills, 888; Stearns v. Brown, 1 Pick. 530 ; Lamb v. Lamb, 11 Ibid.…