Saum v. Coffelt

Citations

• 79 Va. 510
• 1884 Va. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>1. Infants—Liability.— An infant can be held liable for a fraud or a tort, but not, in general, on a contract express or implied.</p> <p>2. Idem—Administrator—Officer.—If letters of administration be granted to an infant under which he receives and disposes of assets of the intestate, an account cannot be directed in respect of his receipts during infancy. Nor is infant officer liable for money placed in his hands, unless he be proved guilty of a tortious conversion.</p> <p>3. Trusts—Direct—Constructive—Statute of Limitation.—Direct trusts are exempt from the plea of the statute of limitations. ' Otherwise, as to trusts by operation of law,—constructive trusts.</p> <p>4. Infants—Administrators—Case at Bar.—In 1856, S., then in his seventeenth year, qualified as one of the administrators of H. He paid out on just debts all the assets that came to his hands, but did not apportion them ratably. He turned over everything in his hands to his co-administrator, in 1858, and left the state. In 1877, a bill was filed charging S. with devastavit. He plead infancy and the bar of the statute of limitations.</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>1. S. being an infant and innocent of fraud or tort, was not liable for the alleged devastavit.</p> <p>2. The lapse of the period of limitation would bar the claim against S. if he was otherwise liable.</p>