UNITED STATES V. MILLINGBB. 187 �ian, and demanded the equivalent in money of "what would have been a proper investment, the rate of interest with which he is to be charged during the period of the guardian- ship is that which, with proper and safe investments, he might have realized, and therefore less than the current legal rate, as explained in the case of Talbot v. King, above referred to. From the termination of the gnardianship, however, in the position assumed by the wards of rejecting the investments, the liability of the guardian was simply to pay over a certain sum of money. His duty was, not to invest it, or to keep it invested, but to pay it to the wards or their legal representatives on demand. It was due presently, and, like other sums due presently, carries interest without annual rests at the rate fixed bylaw therefor. The guardian could have relieved himself at any time by payment. The wards could have had their money at any time on demand. As to this period, therefore, there is no reason for Computing the account with annual rests, nor for charging a less rate than the legal rate of interest, which was 7 per cent, down to January 1, 1880, and 6 per cent, from that date to the pres- ent time. �Other questions, which might have been raised upon the ex- ceptions as drawn, have not been presented on the argument, and, as I understand it, are not now insisted upon. �Let a decree be entered in conformity with this opinicm. ���United States v. Millinoeb and another. �{Circuit Court, S. D. Neuo T<yrk. April 25, 1881.) �Opening JuDOMBNT— New Trial— Distillbr's Bond — Scrett. A federal court has no power to open a judgment against the surety on a dlstiller's bond and grant a new trial, upon the ground that certain facts, existing when the case was tried, were not then put in evidence. — (Ed. �Motion to Open a Judgment and for a New Trial. ��� �
