University of Virginia Library

. . . Another subject has come up which I desire to present to you

The Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company was, as you may know,
trustee of a trust under the will of Emily Swift Balch, the mother-in-law
of our decedent, Emily Clark Balch. It was also trustee of the Estate of
Edwin Swift Balch, the husband of our decedent.

The income from the estate of Edwin Swift Balch was payable to our
decedent. The income from the Estate of Emily Swift Balch was, through
the years, being accumulated for charitable purposes in accordance with
the direction in Emily Swift Balch's will.

In preparing an account of the Emily Swift Balch Estate, the Trust
Company has just discovered that an error occurred in 1939. A payment to
our decedent in the amount of $500. was charged against the Estate of
Emily Swift Balch instead of against the Estate of Edwin Swift Balch.
The result, in substance, is that our decedent, in all probability, died
$500. richer than she would have died if the error had not been made.

The question arises as to whether the Fidelity should stand the loss
and reimburse the Estate of Emily Swift Balch in the amount of $500. or
whether you and Mr. Minor would think it fair for the Fidelity to
reimburse the Estate of Emily Swift Balch by a payment of $500. out of
the respective shares of your two clients.

Trust Companies should not make errors but the curious similarity of
the three Balch names does establish somewhat an excuse.

Our Vestry decided that it was willing to have the Fidelity reimburse
the Estate of Emily Swift Balch, as to one third of the $500, by deducting
it from the share payable to St. James. I assume that Mrs. Balch would
have refunded the $500 received by her, to which she was not entitled.
Since St. James's Church is the successor in interest of her share, our
Vestry prefers to agree that this be done.