Woollen v. Frick

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Upon the petition of Henry Watson, a life-tenant, and trustee for cestuis que trust in remainder, the Superior Court of Baltimore City, in equity, on the 31st January, 1859, passed an order allowing the petitioner to apply a sum not exceeding three thousand dollars, part of the trust funds in his hands, for permanent improvements on a farm in Baltimore County, provided no cause to the contrary thereof was shown on or before a day named in said order. The service of this order was duly made on the cestuis que trust, and no cause to the contrary was shown by said parties in interest. The trustee Watson made the proposed and other permanent improvements on the farm, and died in 18⁷¹, without having made any special report of his disbursements under the order.

The appellees, his executors, found among his papers carefully prepared statements with vouchers, intended as the basis of such report, and one of them stated he had been applied to by the trustee, as his solicitor, to make up from such papers, a proper ²³³ report and file the same, but the trustee died before the same was fully prepared. His executors, from the papers and information which came to their possession, reported to the Court the disbursements which had been made by Watson under the order. This report showed expenditures largely in excess of the sum of three thousand dollars allowed by the Court. After the death of Watson, the appellant, one of the cestuis que trust in remainder was appointed trustee, and as such, filed a bill against the executors of Watson, for an account and delivery to him of the trust property in the hands of the former trustee at the time of his death.

The personal trust fund having been decreased by the use of three thousand dollars by Watson under tbe order of the Court, his executors claimed to be allowed that sum, and to deduct the same from the trust fund remaining in the hands of Watson at the time of his death. The appellant objects to this allowance on several grounds. First, .it is said there is no