Opinion
11-21-1885
ROBBINS v. ROBBINS.
C. G. Garrison, for complainant. D. J. Pancoast, for defendant.
Bill filed by a father to compel an accounting by his son, whom he had made his agent to manage his estate.
C. G. Garrison, for complainant.
D. J. Pancoast, for defendant.
BIRD, V. C. This suit is between father and son. It has had the patient and protracted attention of counsel, and I trust the most careful attention of the court. The complainant, in his age and decline, gave a power of attorney to his son, with the view of having the son manage his affairs; such as renting his properties and collecting rents, and selling the produce of his lands and collecting the proceeds. The son undertook this work, but was only allowed to do it in part. One of thechief difficulties which I have encountered in arriving at an entirely satisfactory conclusion has arisen from the fact that the father continued in some measure to look after his own affairs. He accepted checks and received moneys for grain and other farm produce. Because of such interference by the father with the duties and obligations imposed upon the son it is impossible for one, under the evidence, to charge the son with those things with which he might be chargeable by mere presumption of law. And besides this, I think the weight of testimony upon the facts that are at all capable of being considered with certainty determines the case in favor of the son. It is true, it is the duty of an agent to account strictly; but if the principal has himself, by his interference, created or so contributed to such confusion as to render an absolutely satisfactory accounting impossible, the agent ought not to be held to the must rigid rule. In examining this case I have kept steadily in mind the fact that the son was placed in this confidential relation because of the infirmities of the father, because of which fact the responsibilities of the son may be said to have been increased.
A very careful review of the evidence and of the argument presented by counsel leads me to the conclusion that the father has established no claim against his son, the agent. But it was the duty of the agent to account; and having had ample time to do so, and not accounting, the father was justified in finding this bill and praying for an account. Hence the father is entitled to costs up to the coming in of the answer and including it, and beyond that no costs will be awarded to either party.