Estate of Cridland

Citations

• 132 Pa. 479
• 19 A. 362
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 841

Syllabus

<p>(а) By a will, directing the conversion of a residuary estate, it was provided that it should be invested in trust in productive real estate, well secured ground-rents, mortgages, etc., after approval thereof on prior application to the Orphans’ Court having jurisdiction of the accounts.</p> <p>(б) Under the advice of counsel, the trust estate was invested in United States bonds, payable at the option of the government at the end of five years, but not at the pleasure of the holder until the end of twenty years.</p> <p>For these bonds a premium was paid.</p> <p>(c) At the time the purchase was made, it was believed by capitalists that the option of the government would not be exercised; but at the end of five years the bonds were called in and paid off by the government at their par value:</p> <p>1 In such case, it was not error, on the adjudication of the trustee’s accounts, to refuse to surcharge with the amount of the principal alleged to have been lost by the investment in the bonds at a premium, although the investment had been made without previous application to the Orphans’ Court.</p> <p>2. The only effect of the failure to first obtain the approval of the Orphans’ Court, was to throw upon the trustee the burden of showing that the investment was such as the law permitted, and that in the light of existing circumstances there was no imprudence in making it; this had been shown beyond question: Per Penkose, J.</p>