Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/475

 CAMPBEIil* 1?. CAMPBBI-L. 461 �It will be sufficient to state the facts in regard to tins two principal items, viz., the Rock Island bonds and the Peninsula bonds. �The Rock Island bonds : �The plaintiffs elearly showed the varions amounts of money which belonged to the trust fund, and which went into the hands of the defendant in 1858, 1859, and 1860. This money the defendant invested, either for himself or for the estate. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs also affirmatively to prove their allegations in the bill that a portion of this money was invested in five Rock Island bonds. Circumstances, not strong when viewed singly and discon- nected from their fellows, but significant when viewed in connection with each other and with the admitted facts, show that the defendant did make such an investment. Two of these bonds were omitted in the original aocount. It was manifest that the defendant had re- ceived money of the trust estate which it was his duty to invest for its benefit, and which it had not received. The question, in what, if anything, was it invested ? was not so easy of solution. Prom the nature of the case, the allegations of the plaintiffs must be proved, if proved at all, by separate circumstances, which, when placed together, should be strong enough to support the plaintifs theory. This affirmative proof I think they have fumished. �•The Peninsula bonas: �The affirmative proof, that the money of the estate was knowingly used to pay for these bonds at 80 par cent., whUe they were turned over to the estate at enhanced priees, is so strong that it cannot suc- cessfully be resisted. The defendant was not employing his ownbut the estate's money in this investment. His idea, at the time of the purchase, in regard to the ownership of the bonds, cannot be exactly ascertained. Probably it was to call them the estate's, if they ad- vanced in priee, and his own, if they went down. However this may be, when he finally determined to treat them as the estate's property, it was his duty to aceount for them at the price which the estate had paid, and not at an enhanced price. He could not use the estate's money in the purchase of bonds, treat the coupons as his own, and then profess to resell the bonds to the estate at a large profit. The investment should be regarded as the estate's from the time of the purchase. ' �It cannot be denied that the silence of the defendant, in the face of facts which were very significant, bas made the task of the master and the court, in weighing testimony, more easy than it otherwise jsv'ould have been, for there has been no rebutting testimony. Qne ��� �