186 FBDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �curities turned over to the new guardian at the highest rate at which they could at any time afterwards have been sold, and the exception on the ground that such an allowance was not made must be overruled. �The circumstances of this case are not such that the guardian should be refused his commissions. If he accounts fully for all the estate of bis ward, the plaintiff gets a full indemnity, though the commissions are allowed. There was no wilful misconduct on the part of the guardian. King v. Talbot, 40 N. Y. 96. �The remaining questions submitted relate to the rate of interest and the mode of Computing it. This matter was somewhat considered upon the settlement of the interloeu- tory decree, and the master was directed to compute interest at the rate of 5 per cent., with annual rests, the rate being fixed at the uniform rate of 1 per cent, less than the present legal rate of interest in this state. I think, however, there is good reason to discriminate as to the rate of interest be- tween the period of the guardianship and the period subse- quent thereto. The guardianship of one of the infants terminated in 1864, on her death; that of the other in 1872, on her attaining her majority. In both cases the guardian- ship terminated long before the legal rate of interest in this state was reduced from 7 per cent, to 6 per cent. The rate of interest with which a trustee should be charged during the period of the trust, under similar circumstances, was very carefully considered by the court of appeals in the case of Talbot V. King, ut supra, and it was fixed at 6 per cent., or 1 per cent, below the legal rate of interest in this state. If that decision is not binding on this court, it is entitled to very great consideration, and should, I think, be f ollowed ; and the change made in the legal rate, so long after the ter- mination of these guardianships, does not afFect the question of the rate during the period of the guardianship. During the guardianship the account is to be taken with annual rests. But, with respect to the period subsequent to the termination of the trust, a different principle applies. The wards having rejected the investments made by the guard- ��� �
