PULLIAM V. PULLIAM. 65 �money for bis own use, and by false accounts having exhibited the estate as insolvent, he was charged with interest. In Jones v. Ward, 10 Yerg. 161, the executer paid improvident expenses of the legatee while at college tosave him from disgrace, and the court charged him with interest. So in Torbett v. McReynolds, 4 Humph, 214, where administrators neglected to sue for a slave, they were charged with its value and interest. In Jameson v. Shelhy, 2 Humph. 198, the exec- utor, in good faith, converted bank stock, and he was charged with interest on its value. In Deaderick v. Gantrell, 10 Yerg. 263, an exeo- utor charged with a trust to invest was made to pay simple interest .on yearly balances for a breach of that trust. In Lowy v. McGee, 3 Head, 269, an executor, also a trustee for investment, having failed to collect a debt and employ it in the most useful manner for the benefit of the cestui que trust, was charged with the lost debt and interest from the time of the loss. In the case of Governor v. McEwen, 5 Humph. 240, trustees, not executors, were charged with interest because they neglected to invest as required by their trust. But in Wood V. Cooper, 2 Heisk. 441, an agent, acting in good faith, was not charged with interest unless he actually received it. In Laura Jane V. Hagen, 10 Humph. 331, a testator emancipated a young slave and provided that she should have $200 a year for her education. Her mother removed her to Ohio, and, her freedom being denied, the money was never paid. The court allowed her the principal sum, but as "interest in sach a case ig not a matter of positive law, and whether it shall be allowed or recovered must depend on the circum- stances of each case," it was refueed, because for several years her residence was unknown to the administrator, and no proper applica- tion h ad been made until the bill was filed ; it was allowed, however, from the liling of the bill. In Fulton v. Davidson, 3 Heisk. 614, 637, the will appointed executors, but required no duty except that they should pay debts, or at least they were not trustees for investment. Fulton, one of the executors, received all the money, (and it was a wealthy estate,) and at the time he was killed in the eonfederate army the balance on hand was unpaid and unaccounted for, and he was held responsible for so much as had not been applied to the payment of debts. It does not appear what he did with the funds, but as the controversy was largely made to hold a solvent joint executor liable, it is inferred that the funds were at least endangered by hia inability to pay them promptly after the war through his representatives, although the eircumstances satisfied the court that he acted with v.lXno-l — 5 ��� �
