penseof  accounting,  ^^/</,  that  that  exi^ense  106,  124;  Dyott's  Estate,  2  W.  &  S.  (Pa.)
should  be  deducted  after  and  not  before  505;  Merrick's  Estate,  2  Ashm.  (Pa.)  48 j.
computing  interest   on   the  balance.      Re  An  executor  or  administrator  who  trades
Barcalow,  36  N.  J.  Eq.  611.  with  the  assets,  in  States  where  the  Eng-
But  where  the  annual  balances  are  too  lish  practice  is  adopted,  will  be  charged
small  to  have  been  put  at  interest,  and  the  the  highest  rate  allowed  by  law.    McKen-
executor  has  received  no  credit  or  profit  zie  v   Anderson,  2  Woods  (U.  S.  C.  C),
from  them,  interest  will  only  be  charged  on  J57;  Williams  v.  Petticrew,  62  Mo.  460;
the  accumulated  balances.    See  Rapalje  v,  Scott  i/.  Crews,  72  Mo.  461,  468  ;  Hook  v..
Nosworthy,  1  Sand.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  399;  Lu-  Pavne,  14  Wal.  (U.  S.)  252.
ken's   Appeal,  47  Pa.  St.  356;   Graver's  Iteits  and  Compsnnd  Interest.  •— The  bet-
Appeal,  50  Pa.  St.  18^;  Fay  v.  Howe,  i  ter  opinion  is,  that,  in  directing  compound
Pick.    (Mass.)   527;  Gilman  v.  Gilman,  2  interest  against  an  accounting  party,  the
Lans.  (N  Y.)  i ;  Woods?/.  Garnett,6  Leigh  court  proceeds  upon  the  principle  that  he
(Va.),  271 ;  Bond  v.  Abbott,  42  Ala.  499.  has  made,  or  has  placed  himself  in  such
Bate  of  Interest.  —  The  English  rule,  as  position  that  he  must  be  presumed  to  have
established  by  the  authorities,  is  that,  if  an  made,  that  amount  of  profit  out  of  the
executor  or  administrator  has  retained  bal-  estate,  and  not  with  a  view  to  punishing
ances  in  his  hands  which  he  ought  to  have  him  for  using  the  p1aintiff*s  monev.     Lord
invested,  the  court  will  charge  him  with  Hatherley   in   Burdick  v.  Garrick,  5  Ch.
