ROCKHOLD
v.
ROCKHOLD ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An executor of an estate received Confederate currency from a debtor during the Civil War and, under military compulsion, paid it over to Confederate authorities; the Supreme Court held that the executor was not liable to a legatee for this loss because the executor acted under duress from military authority he could not resist and did not act negligently or in bad faith, and therefore dismissed the writ of error as raising no federal question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
The object of this suit was to bring the executors of the will of Thomas Rockhold, deceased, to an account with the plaintiff, Charles Rockhold, one of the legatees. The defendant, William D. Blevins, one of the executors, answering the bill, said, in substance, that, contrary to his wishes, he was forced by a military power that he could not control to .receive the sum of $5,004.74 from one of the debtors of the estate, in Confederate money, and pay it over to the receiver of the Confederate States. When this was done, the country was under complete military rule; and he acted, contrary to his Avishes, under Confederate authority, which he was compelled to obey. This, he claimed, excused Mm from accountability to the plaintiff for this amount; and the Supreme Court of the State has so decided.
To reverse this decision the present writ of error has been brought.
We cannot distinguish this .case from Bethel v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537; Delmas v. Insurance Company, 14 id. 661; and Tarver v. Keach, 15 id. 67. The State court has only decided, that, upon principles of general law, a trustee cannot be held responsible to his cestui que trust for the loss of a trust-fund, if the loss has not been occasioned by his own laches or bad faith; and that the delivery of the trust-fund in this case by the defendant into the hands of the Confederate authorities, under an order which he dared not disobey, excused him from liability to the plaintiff. This is not a Federal question.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Southern Railway-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1914)
-
Williams v. Heard, 140 U.S. 529 (U.S. 1891)
-
Chicago and Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U.S. 615 (U.S. 1877)…decision of a state court holding a contract valid or void when “ made upon the general principles by which courts determine whether a consideration is good or bad on principles of public policy.” Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 67; Rockhold v. Rockhold, 92 U. S. 129 ; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 98 U. S. 286; United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586; Bank v. Mc Veigh, 98 U. S. 332; Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 596, 601; Allen v. Mc Veigh, 107 U. S. 433; San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 768; Grame v. Insur…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537 (U.S. 1870)