Viewing page 95 of 299

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

182

her taking the key from the portmonnaie of the deceased after his death, it is a question whether these admissions could not have been reconciled with her statement, especially considering the wording of the paper Exhibit "C" accompanying the key - If Rhoda had rested there, according to that part of the evidence, she might have established a valid claim to the whole contents of the box - But she states, not only to others, but in her testimony before the Court, that a part of the bonds were to be given to the decedents sister, thereby waiving her strict claim as granted in donatio causa mortis and placing herself in the position of a custodian or  The payment 1st of a debt to herself and 2nd to account for a part of the property which in the undefined condition of the implied trust would be decreed to be the whole of the property to which she could not establish a legal claim in herself. She alleges that in 1862, she gave deceased  $1.560 in specie to be returned in bonds. The evidence of Belle Tensley shows that deceased stated that the bonds in which he had invested for Rhoda were in the box at Maury & Co. But it seems, both by the list marked with Rhodas name in decedents handwriting and by actual inspection of its contents, that there were in that box several kinds of bonds some worthless and some valuable -  It is claimed by plaintiffs counsel in his argument on the appeal, that the transaction was a simple loan to assist the decedent in his affairs, but the evidence he quotes is not furnished in the testimony submitted. Yet his statement is probable from the relations and the character of the parties between such as whom there is generally perfect confidence and, as it were a common stock. It at least must be borne in mind that Rhoda, an ignorant woman, trusted all to the honesty and discretion of one whom she must have regarded as a superior, and probably with strong affection. Taking however her statement as given in the abstract of testimony, that the amount was to be "returned in bonds" a principle of equity is evoked. Parkhurst was here, at least in a fiduciary capacity as her agent. If as agent he invested for her without in any way himself showing or she recognizing, in what one of these description of bonds, remaining after his death in the fixed depository, the investment was in fact made she is not be prejudiced by that neglect - 

183
He mixed his own property with hers, and left no ear-mark or traceable division of proprietorship - In that case neither is she to be saddled with any description of the several depreciated bonds. at the option of the distributees, nor on the other hand could she claim in the appreciation of any of the securities that she should elect the preferable -
The true decree in such a case would be what alone can be ascertained. The reimbursement of the actual amount entrusted to Parkhurst with interest from some fixed period - I believe from evidence that the true theory of the whole case is in accordance with the last mentioned proposition - The deceased had confidence in Rhoda, and left her, in the haste of a death bed of but five hours preparation the only means by his making her custodian of his effects, of repaying herself, and doing justice to his relations. The result shows that his confidence was well founded -

Between parties living in the relation and apparent affection, however illegally exibited, of Parkhurst and Rhoda, there would have been no questions of interest running upon a loan. Neither regarding the question as one of investment, is it possible to ascertain the time of investment, which was at the absolute discretion of the agent, any more than the securities in which the same was made. The equitable measure would be to fix the starting point when for the first time Parkhurst relinquished his fiduciary control and when Rhoda for the first time came into possession of the property ie. from the death of Parkhurst - I believed therefore that the sum of $1.560 was given by Rhoda Christian to Henry Parkhurst as a trust, and by proper order should be refunded to her with interest from the date of the latters decease, and my endorsement was to that effect -

Very respectfully
Your obedient servant
Sigd OBrown
Col. and Asst Comr

Official
James A. Bates
A.a.A.G.

Transcription Notes:
specie is defined as coin, as distinguished from paper money ---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-01-19 09:38:31 ---------- Reopened for Editing 2024-01-19 11:50:17