Stephen Johnson Field

Name: Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stephen Johnson Field

Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stephen Johnson Field. It explores elements such as executor, Renick and testator.

Quotes from Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ And where an administrator had assigned promissory notes of the estate in his hands for goods for his own use, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that it was a waste of the assets; and that if the assignee had knowledge, even from the nature of the transaction, that the administrator was thus acting in violation of his trust, the right of property in the notes was not divested, and he could not hold the notes or profit by such assignment as against those rightfully entitled to them. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ There is no doubt that Ayer & Co. relied entirely upon the judgment of their attorney as to the power of the executor of the estate of Thomas T. Renick to pledge the note for moneys borrowed to be used in the business of the firm of B. T. Renick & Co. Still they must be held to know the law, and the limitations which it prescribes to the powers of executors in the disposition of property coming into their hands as such officers; and, however free from intentional wrong, they must bear the responsibility of a mistaken judgment with respect to those limitations. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ And property thus held, acquired from him by third parties with knowledge of his trust and his disregard of its obligations, can be followed and recovered. The law exacts the most perfect good faith from all parties dealing with a trustee respecting trust property. Whoever takes it for an object other than the general purposes of the trust, or such as may reasonably be supposed to be within its scope, must look to the authority of the trustee, or he will act at his peril. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ But the case is otherwise where the purchaser or pledgee has knowledge of the perversion of the property to other purposes than those of the estate, or the intended perversion of the proceeds. The executor, though holding the title to the personal assets, is not absolute owner of them. They are not liable for his debts, nor can he dispose of them by will. He holds them in trust to pay the debts of the deceased, and then to discharge his legacies; and, as in all other cases of trust, he is personally responsible for any breach of duty. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ A testator, too, directing the continuance of a partnership, may, if he so choose, bind his general assets for all the debts of the partnership contracted after his death. But he may also limit his responsibility, either to the funds already embarked in the trade, or to any specific amount to be invested therein for that purpose ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ Justice Story, 'in each case the agreement or authority must be clearly made out; and third persons, having notice of the death, are bound to inquire how far the agreement or authority to continue it extends, and what funds it binds; and if they trust the surviving party beyond the reach of such agreement, or authority, or fund, it is their own fault, and they have no right to complain that the law does not afford them any satisfactory redress. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ The property having been sold at different times for taxes, and being subject to various charges, Renick advanced money to a large amount, stated to be between twenty and thirty thousand dollars, to redeem it from the sales, and to pay off the claims upon it. He was authorized under the will to sell the real estate, and accordingly, in July, 1872, he sold it to one Joel D. Harvey for $157,000, payable one-fourth in cash and the balance in one, two, and three years, for which notes were given, secured by a trust-deed of the property executed to one J. Edwards Fay. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ He showed to its officers the note of Harvey, having the indorsement extending the time of payment for a period not exceeding two years, pursuant to the agreement deposited with Goodman, and informed them of the trust-deed executed to him to secure its payment. The indorsement, as already seen, showed that the note was held by B. T. Renick as executor. He also told them of the loan made by Ayer & Co. upon the security of the second note, the examination then made by their attorney into the sufficiency of the security and his favorable report. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court

“ They were commenced in a court of the State of Illinois, and upon application of the defendants, Ayer et al., in the first case, and of the First National Bank of Westboro', Mass., in the second case, were transferred to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. ”

Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

Quotes from Smith v. Ayer Smith — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature