Beasley v. . Knox

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Beasley v. . Knox

58 N.C. 1

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 5, 1859

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 N.C. 1 (Beasley v. . Knox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beasley v. . Knox, 58 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1859).

Pincite

Opinion

PeaRsoN, C. J.

Where the will fixes no time for the payment of legacies, they are payable forthwith, and unless the condition of the estate requires delay, it is the duty of an executor to assent to specific legacies, and to pay pecuniary legacies as soon as funds are in hand. “ The statute allows executors and administrators two years to settle estates, on the supposition that many estates are complicated, and cannot well be settled in less time ; this, however, was by no means intended to confer, on the residuary legatee, the right to have the fund put out at interest for his benefit Turnage v. Turnage, 7 Ire. Eq. 127. According to the principle established by that case, in the absence of any direction in the will, if a slave, for instance, is bequeathed, the executor should assent forthwith, or, if he should deem it prudent to withhold his assent and hires the slave, when he does assent, the legatee will be entitled to receive the amount of the hire. So, if anote, drawing interest, is bequeathed, and the executor retains it to see how the estate will turn out, the legatee is entitled to the interest as well as the note. Eor, the amount of the hire, or of the interest, certainly does not belong to the executor, nor has the residuary legatee any right to it; and where it appears that the delay, although prudent, was not necessary, the specific legatee is entitled to be put in the same condition as if it had not occurred ; under the maxim, “ equity considers that done which ought to have been done,” which is effected by considering the executor as having acted as a trustee for such legatee. ,

In our case, as there was no monejr on hand, the defendant was right, when he offered to pay the legacies in bonds, and the plaintiffs were mistaken in supposing that they were entitled to have the amount of their legacies in money ; but still, as the bonds were drawing interest, the defendant was bound, when he afterwards paid the money, to account for the interest which he had received $ because the accumulation could *4 not enure to his benefit, nor to that of the residuary legatees.

There will be a decree for the plaintiffs, but without costs, as their refusal to accept the bonds, was the original cause of the litigation.

Per Curiam, Decree accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PeaRsoN, C. J.

Where the will fixes no time for the payment of legacies, they are payable forthwith, and unless the condition of the estate requires delay, it is the duty of an executor to assent to specific legacies, and to pay pecuniary legacies as soon as funds are in hand. “ The statute allows executors and administrators two years to settle estates, on the supposition that many estates are complicated, and cannot well be settled in less time ; this, however, was by no means intended to confer, on the residuary legatee, the right to have the fund put out at interest for his benefit Turnage v. Turnage, 7 Ire. Eq. 127. According to the principle established by that case, in the absence of any direction in the will, if a slave, for instance, is bequeathed, the executor should assent forthwith, or, if he should deem it prudent to withhold his assent and hires the slave, when he does assent, the legatee will be entitled to receive the amount of the hire. So, if anote, drawing interest, is bequeathed, and the executor retains it to see how the estate will turn out, the legatee is entitled to the interest as well as the note. Eor, the amount of the hire, or of the interest, certainly does not belong to the executor, nor has the residuary legatee any right to it; and where it appears that the delay, although prudent, was not necessary, the specific legatee is entitled to be put in the same condition as if it had not occurred ; under the maxim, “ equity considers that done which ought to have been done,” which is effected by considering the executor as having acted as a trustee for such legatee. ,

In our case, as there was no monejr on hand, the defendant was right, when he offered to pay the legacies in bonds, and the plaintiffs were mistaken in supposing that they were entitled to have the amount of their legacies in money ; but still, as the bonds were drawing interest, the defendant was bound, when he afterwards paid the money, to account for the interest which he had received $ because the accumulation could *4 not enure to his benefit, nor to that of the residuary legatees.

There will be a decree for the plaintiffs, but without costs, as their refusal to accept the bonds, was the original cause of the litigation.

Per Curiam, Decree accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.C. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beasley-v-knox-nc-1859.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack