[DOWNLOAD] "In Re Mullens Estate" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

eBook details

Title: In Re Mullens Estate
Author : Supreme Court of Montana
Release Date : January 26, 1934
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 63 KB

Description

Executors and Administrators ? Deposit of Estate Funds in Closed Bank ? When, and When not, Representative Liable for Loss ? Negligence ? Failure to Present Claim to Receiver ? Appeal and Error ? Equity Cases ? Findings ? When Conclusive. Appeal and Error ? Equity Cases ? Extent of Review ? Evidence ? Findings. 1. On appeal in a proceeding equitable in its nature, the supreme court will, in a proper case, review all questions of fact presented by the record, as well as questions of law, and determine the same, and where there is no conflict in the evidence, the court will decide whether the findings made are justified by the evidence. Executors and Administrators ? Deposit of Estate Fund in Bank ? Administrator not Insurer ? When not Liable for Loss in Closed Bank. 2. An administrator is not an insurer of the assets of the estate represented by him, and if he deposits its funds with a responsible bank, acting in good faith in the exercise of his best judgment, he is not liable for loss occasioned by its failure. Same ? Loss of Estate Funds in Closed Bank ? To Hold Representative Liable Negligence must be Shown. 3. To charge an administrator with the loss of estate funds in a closed bank, of which he was cashier, the evidence must show that he was negligent in not removing them before its closing, negligence in that behalf being the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done in the circumstances of the situation. Same ? Finding That Administrator (Cashier of Bank in Which Estate Funds Deposited) not Negligent, and Therefore not Liable, Held Sustained by Evidence. 4. Where in a proceeding to hold an administrator liable for estate funds in a closed bank, who was also cashier of the bank in which they were deposited, there was no evidence offered as to its condition at any time, except that of the receiver given as to its condition at the time of the trial, and the only facts tending to alarm a prudent person in that behalf were that it had borrowed large sums, that withdrawals were exceeding deposits, that it - Page 145 required notice of intended withdrawals from savings accounts only exceeding a certain amount, but had sufficient cash on hand to take care of its immediate needs, the defendant and the managing director on the other hand testifying that they had no reason to believe the bank in danger until a few days prior to its closing, a finding of the trial court that defendant was not negligent will not be disturbed on appeal.