Appeal — Review of Order Denying New Trial — Grounds of Motion — Conclusions of Law — Sufficiency of Findings. — Upon appeal from an order denying a new trial, the appellate court is limited to a review of the action of the court upon the grounds upon which the new trial was asked, and can determine whether the conclusions of law are correctly drawn from the findings of fact, or whether the findings sustain the judgment, only upon an appeal from the judgment.

Id. — Law of Case — Appeals Involving Different Matter. — The law of the case, as established by opinions upon former appeals from a judgment on demurrer to a complaint, and from an order granting a new trial after a judgment of nonsuit, has no relevancy in determining upon a subsequent appeal from an order denying a new trial whether the court erred in admitting or excluding evidence or made its findings without sufficient evidence to support them.

Executors and Administrators — Negligence — Loss of Property of Decedent — Findings — Erroneous Valuation.—In an action by a devisee against an executor to recover the value of land of which it is alleged that the defendant, in violation of his duties as executor, did not ¡safely keep and protect the possession, but allowed and permitted himself to be dispossessed, and the property and title lost to plaintiff, where the court finds that the original claim of the decedent was for a seventy-two-acre tract of land valued in the inventory as an entirety at a specified sum, and that the decedent was the owner of only forty-two acres of the tract, it is error for the court to take as the basis of the defendant’s liability the valuation given in the inventory of the seventy-two-acre tract.

Id.—Inventory — Appraised Value — Prima Faoie Proof — Un described Part of Described Tract — Inadmissible Evidence of Valuation. —Although an executor or administrator is chargeable with the whole of the estate of the decedent which may have come into his possession at the value of the appraisement contained in the inventory, unless he shall exonerate himself as provided by the statute, the inventory is only prima facie evidence of the value of the estate specifically described therein, and is not admissible as evidence against the executor or administrator of the value of a tract of land not therein specifically described or valued, though it is part of an entire tract which has a specific description and valuation.

Id. — Burden of Proof—Negligence — Value.—If the heir or devisee seeks to charge an executor for negligence in not taking or retaining possession of property belonging to the estate, the burden is upon the complainant to establish such negligence, and to present competent proof of the value of the property lost to the estate.

Id.—Liability of Exeoutor — Measure of Damages — Value at Date of Loss — Lapse of Time. — An executor is prima facie liable for only such assets as come into his possession. His liability for negligence is measured by the detriment actually sustained by the estate therefrom; and if the executor has not profited by his acts or been guilty of willful misfeasance, the value of the property at the date of the loss is the measure of the right of recovery, whether the property be real or personal; and the amount of recovery cannot be increased by mere lapse of time, or by neglect of the parties interested to call him to account for the loss.

Id. — Value Subsequent to Loss — Evidence — Findings. — Testimony offered and a finding made as to the value of a tract of land at a date long subsequent to the date of the alleged loss thereof by the executor is immaterial, and cannot be taken as the measure of the executor’s liability for the loss sustained.

Id. — Compound Interest, when not Allowable. — An executor or trustee cannot be charged with compound interest, except in cases where he has been guilty of some positive misconduct or willful violation of duty; and though he is presumably chargeable with compound interest where he has mingled the funds of the estate with his own, yet if he can show that he has acted in good faith, and has made no greater profit by their use, he will be charged only simple interest. In cases of mere negligence, compound interest cannot properly be added to the loss or damage resulting therefrom.

Id. —Allowance of Simple Interest—Loss by Negligence — Question of Fact. — The rule allowing interest to be charged against an executor is limited to cases in which it is either shown or presumed that the executor has himself profited by his acts, or has been guilty of willful malfeasance; and whether he can be charged with even simple interest in case of loss by negligence must be determined by the trial court from the circtim- ’ stances of the case.

Id.—Technical Neglect — Negligence of Claimant.—No interest should be allowed in addition to the value of property lost to the estate by the negligence of the executor, where the circumstances show that his neglect has been merely technical, and not wanton or willful, or productive of profit to the executor, and the complainant has been negligent in prosecuting his claim.