Crosby v. Merriam
This text of 17 N.W. 950 (Crosby v. Merriam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It was the duty of the guardian, having money of his ward in his hands, to make the same productive by investment. Having neglected to do so, but retained the money many years, and no reason being shown to excuse the neglect, the guardian was properly charged with interest at the legal rate, after the lapse of a reasonable time (six months) for making investments. Dunscomb v. Dunscomb, 1 John. Ch. 508; Karr’s Adm’r v. Karr, 6 Dana, 3; 1 [343]*343Perry on Trusts, § 468 et seq.; Schouler on Domestic Relations, § § 353, 354. There is nothing in this case excusing the guardian from the duty of investing the money.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 N.W. 950, 31 Minn. 342, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosby-v-merriam-minn-1883.