State Ex Rel. Reddick v. Satterfield

Pearson, J. We think his Honor was mistaken in the view, which he took of the case. Admit that the deed of the intestate was void by reason of her infancy, his Honor seems to have been under the impression, that the fund was to be treated as land, and that the plaintiff, as personal representative, could only recover the profits or interest up to the time of the death of the intestate, which, we presume, he considered was for the benefit of the husband, but that the principal belonged to the heirs at law. Without deciding how the rights of the parties may be considered in a Court of Equity, we are of opinion, that in a Court of Law, the defendant, having received money belonging to his ward, was, after her death, bound to pay it over to her personal representative-; and that his re *360 fusal to do so was a clear breach of the bond to the amount of principal and interest. The judgment must be set aside and a venire de no,vo issued. Pek. CuRiam. Judgment accordingly.