Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Trusts - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 45 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Warriner v Rogers LR 16 Eq 340
1800

Sir James Bacon VC
Trusts, Wills and Probate
(Year unknown) The donor wrote on pieces of paper that her servant was to have certain property on her death, but these documents did not amount to a valid will. Held: The gift was imperfect as these documents did not constitute a valid declaration of trust.
1 Citers


 
Caffrey v Darby 31 ER 1159; (1801) 6 Ves 488; [1775-1802] All ER Rep 507; [1801] EngR 484; (1801) 6 Ves Jun 488; (1801) 31 ER 1159
1801

Lord Eldon LC
Trusts, Equity
A fiduciary has a strict duty to account; equity imposes stringent liability on a fiduciary as a deterrent – pour encourager les autres. Lord Eldon LC said: "It would be very dangerous, though no fraud could be imputed to the trustees, and no kind of interest or benefit to themselves was looked to, to lay down this principle; that trustees might without any responsibility act, as these did: in eight years, within which time the whole money ought to have been paid, receiving only £250; and taking no step as to the remainder. It would be an encouragement to bad motives; and it may be impossible to detect undue motives. If we get the length of neglect in not recovering this money by taking possession of the property, will they be relieved from that by the circumstance, that the loss has ultimately happened by something, that is not a direct and immediate consequence of their negligence: viz. the decision of a doubtful question of law? Even supposing they are right in saying, this was a very doubtful question, and they could not look to the possibility of its being so decided, yet, if they have been already guilty of negligence, they must be responsible for any loss in any way to that property: for whatever may be the immediate cause, the property would not have been in a situation to sustain that loss, if it had not been for their negligence. If they had taken possession of the property, it would not have been in his possession. If the loss had happened by fire, lightning, or any other accident, that would not be an excuse for them, if guilty of previous negligence. That was their fault."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Jenour v Jenour (1805) 10 Ves 562
1804


Trusts
A trustee taking legal action properly to defend the assets of the trust can expect to be indemnified from those assets.
1 Citers



 
 Fearns v Young; 1804 - (1804) 10 Ves 184
 
Morice v The Bishop of Durham [1804] EngR 179; (1804) 9 Ves Jun 399; (1804) 32 ER 656
26 Mar 1804
CA
Sir William Grant MR
Charity, Trusts
Bequest, in trust for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the trustee in his own discretion shall most approve, cannot be supported as a charitable Legacy ; and is therefore a Trust for the next of kin.
Ann Cracherade by her Will, dated the 16th of April 1801, and duly executed to pass real estate, after giving several legacies to her next of kin and others, some of which she directed to be paid out of the produce of her real estate, directed to be sold, bequeathed all her personal estate to the Bishop of Durham, his executors, &c., upon trust to pay her debts and legacies, &c.; and to dispose of the u1timate residue to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of ; and she appointed the Bishop her sole executor.
The bill was filed by the next of kin, to have the Will established, except as to the residuary bequest; and that such bequest may be declared void. The Attorney General was made a Defendant . The Bishop by his answer expressly disclaimed any beneficial interest in himself personally.
Held: The objects of benevolence and liberality were not so limited, and that the gift therefore failed. Sir William Grant MR described the effect of the 1601 Act and the use of the word 'charity': "Here its signification is derived chiefly from the Statute of Elizabeth. Those purposes are considered charitable, which that Statute enumerates, or which by analogies are deemed within its spirit and intendment." He continued: "But it is settled, upon authority, which it is too late to controvert, that where a charitable purpose is expressed, however general, the bequest shall not fail on account of uncertainty of the object: but the particular mode of application will be directed by the King in some cases, in others by this Court."
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Boehm v Clarke [1804] EngR 294; (1804) 9 Ves Jun 580; (1804) 32 ER 728
25 Jun 1804


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Beckford v Wade; PC 1805 - (1805) 17 Ves Jun 87; [1805] EngR 116; (1805) 17 Ves Jun 87; (1805) 34 ER 34
 
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805) 10 Ves Jun 522; [1805] EWHC Ch J80; (1805) 10 Ves 522; (1805) 32 ER 947
1805
HL
Lord Eldon LC, Sir William Grant MR
Trusts, Charity
The court was asked whether a gift of residue to be applied "to such objects of benevolence and liberality as the Bishop of Durham in his own discretion shall most approve of" was valid as being confined to purposes that were charitable. Held: For a non-charitable trust to be given effect at law, the beneficiaries of the trust must be identifiable.
Lord Eldon referred to the preamble to the 1601 Statute, saying: "where there is a gift to charity, in general, whether it is to be executed by individuals selected by the testator himself or the King as parens patriae is to execute it . . it is the duty of such trustees, on the one hand, and of the Crown, upon the other, to apply the money to charity in the sense, which the determinations have affixed to that word in this court, viz. either such charitable purposes as are expressed in the Statute . . or to purposes having analogy to those. I believe the expression "charitable purposes," as used in this court, has been applied to many acts described in that Statute, and analogous to those, not because they can with propriety be called charitable, but as that denomination is by the Statute given to all the purposes described." and
"As it is a maxim, that the execution of a trust shall be under the control of the Court, it must be of such a nature, that it can be under that control; so that the administration of it can be reviewed by the Court; or, if the trustee dies, the Court itself can execute the trust; a trust therefore, which, in case of maladministration could be reformed; and a due administration directed; and then, unless the subject and the objects can be ascertained, upon principles, familiar in other cases, it must be decided, that the Court can neither reform maladministration, nor direct a due administration."
Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Morice v The Bishop of Durham [1805] EngR 97; (1805) 10 Ves Jun 522; (1805) 32 ER 947
20 Mar 1805


Charity, Trusts

Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Morice v The Bishop of Durham [1805] EngR 209; (1805) 11 Ves Jun 57; (1805) 32 ER 1009 (A)
21 Jun 1805


Charity, Trusts

Statute of Charitable Uses 1601
1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Walton v Walton [1807] EngR 341; (1807) 14 Ves Jun 318; (1807) 33 ER 543
20 Jul 1807


Wills and Probate, Trusts
A Paper, proved as a Will, reciting the Marriage Articles of the testator's daughter with A; confirming those Articles; and directing, that all the testator's property and effects shall be vested in A. preferable to any executor or administrator upon and after the testator's decease for all and every the purposes of his said agreement expressed or intended. The Probate, obtained by A. as Executor, conclusive; and he was held not a trustee for the next of kin upon parol evidence of Declarations, subsequent to the Will.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Finch v Finch (1808) 15 Ves 43
1808

Eldon L
Trusts
The presumption of advancement in a gift may be rebutted but should not 'give way to slight circumstances'.
1 Citers


 
Marquis Cholmondeley And The Hon Ann Seymour Damer v Lord Clinton [1816] EngR 865; (1816) 2 Mer 71; (1816) 35 ER 867 (B)
18 Dec 1816


Trusts, Litigation Practice

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Attorney-General v Pearson; 1817 - (1817) 3 Mer 353; [1817] EngR 645; (1817) 3 Mer 353; (1817) 36 ER 135
 
Marquis Cholmondeley And The Honourable Ann Seymour Damer v Lord Clinton, Francis Drake, Ambrose St John, John Inglett Fortescue, Sir Lawrence Palk (Deceased), William Seymour, And Others [1817] EngR 606; (1817) 2 Mer 171; (1817) 35 ER 905
28 Jun 1817


Trusts

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
The Rev Adam John Walker And Loveday His Wife, Late Loveday Whitmore Spinster, William Roberts Since Deceased, And John Sanderson v William Symonds Since Deceased, John Lilly, Isaac Harris, And Johanna Whitmore (By Original Bill) [1818] EngR 592; (1818) 3 Swans 1; (1818) 36 ER 751
6 Jul 1818


Trusts
A deed of compromise executed by a cestui que trust, with the representatives and creditors of a deceased trustee was guilty of a breach of trust, rescinded, and co-trustees declared responsible.
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Marquis of Cholmondeley v Lord Clinton [1819] EngR 158; (1819) 2 B & A 625; (1819) 106 ER 494
1819


Trusts
Where A, in a conveyance to uses, settled an estate for life on himself, remainder in tail to his issue, with an ultimate limitation to the heirs of SR in fee; and at the time of the settlement A was himself the right heir of SR. Held: that this ultimate limitation was void, and that the estate after the death of A without issue, descended on his heirs general. Held, also, that it was not competent to go into the intention of the settlor, apparent from the recital, in order to explain the words of this limitation, they being words of plain and well-known import.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Craigdallie And Others v Aikman And Others; PC 21-Jul-1820 - [1820] EngR 518; (1820) 2 Bligh PC 529; (1820) 4 ER 435
 
Marquis Cholmondeley And The Honourable Ann Seymour Damer v Lord Clinton etc [1820] EngR 550; (1820) 2 Jac & W 1; (1820) 37 ER 527
8 Aug 1820


Trusts

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Curteis v Candler [1821] EngR 605; (1821) 6 Madd 123; (1821) 56 ER 1039 (A)
15 Nov 1821


Trusts
A trustee seeking the direction and indemnity of the Court as to the execution of his trust is, whether Plaintiff or Defendant, entitled to his costs; unless the act required to be done leads to no responsibility, and the motive of the trustee is obviously vexatious.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Chambers v Arkins [1823] EngR 526; (1823) 1 Sim & St 382; (1823) 57 ER 153
10 May 1823


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte Chambers, In The Matter Of Chambers [1829] EngR 525; (1829) 1 Russ & My 577; (1829) 39 ER 221 (B)
18 Jun 1829


Trusts
Order made upon petition that executors should be at liberty to apply certain small sums, part of the capita!, of the residuary shares bequeathed by a father to his infant children, towards their maintenance, education and advancement though the shares did not vest till the children came of age.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Taylor v Forbes, And Others [1830] EngR 202; (1830) 7 Bligh NS PC 417; (1830) 5 ER 828
1830
PC

Trusts
Where trust-money in the hands of a debtor was applied by a banker in payment of his debt. Held. that it was a proper case for issues to be directed to inquire how much of the money had been so applied, and whether the creditor at the time of the appropriation knew that it was trust-money.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Lester v Garland [1832] EngR 498; (1832) 5 Sim 205; (1832) 58 ER 314
24 Mar 1832

Sir L Shadwell VC
Trusts, Insolvency
A trader on his marriage received a fortune of £5000 with his wife ; and settled a sum of stock in trust for himself for life, with limitations over for the benefit of his wife and children, in the event of his becoming bankrupt or insolvent. And it was provided that if he should survive his wife, and the issue of the marriage should fail, and he should then be or should have been a bankrupt, 15 sixty-sixths of the stock should belong to the wife’s next of kin in blood. No part of the £5000 was settled; but the whole of the settled fund was the husband's property, and it did not appear, from any of the expressions in the settlement, what was the consideration for the provisions as to 15 sixty-sixths of the stock. Held: that the limitation over in the event of the bankruptcy of the husband were good as to 15 sixty-sixths of the trust fund, that being the proportion of the trust fund which the wife’s fortune would have purchased, but were void as to the remainder.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Langston v Langston (1834) Cl. & Fin. 194
1834

Lord Brougham LC
Trusts

1 Citers


 
Wardle v Carter [1835] EngR 1081; (1835) 7 Sim 490; (1835) 58 ER 925
23 Dec 1835


Trusts
A. was entitlecl for the joint lives of himself and his father to a rent-charge of £500 charged on an estate of which his father was tenant for life, with remainder to A in fee. A having agreed to sell to B a perpetual rentcharge of £500 issuing out of the estate, assigned to E. the rent-charge to which he was so entitled, and conveyed his reversion in fee to trustees in trust to secure to B a rent-charge of £500 a year, to commence on the termination of the prior rent-charge. Held, that the transaction was not to be considered as a sale of an interest in reversion, as A when he made the agreement, had it in his power to secure to B a perpetual rentcharge of £500 in possession.
In determining whether a fair price has been paid for a reversionary interest, the market value, and not an actuary's estimate, ought to be regarded.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Stiffe v Everitt [1836] EngR 342; (1836) 1 My and Cr 37; (1836) 40 ER 290
23 Jan 1836


Trusts
A testator gave his residuary estate to trustees, upon trust to invest the proceeds, and pay the profits, dividends, or interest thereof to the separate use of his daughter for life, exclusive of any husband she might marry, without power of anticipation, but with a power to appoint the capital of the fund, such appointment to take effect only from and after her decease. The daughter, who, at the date of the will, and at the testator's death, was a feme sole, afterwards married, ancl joined with her hushand in petitioning to have the fund transferrecl to him absolutely, oflering, at the same time, to execute any appointment which the Court might think proper for that purpose ; but the Court refused to make any order.
Semble, a husband and wife cannot effectually clispose of the life interest of the wife in a fund not settled to her seperate use, heyond the duration of the coverture.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones v Morgan [1837] EngR 407; (1836-1837) 2 Y & C Ex 403; (1837) 160 ER 453
19 Jan 1837


Trusts, Family

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rowland Israell v Anna Woollery Rodon [1837] EngR 1111; (1837) 2 Moo PC 43; (1837) 12 ER 919; [1837] UKPC 21
30 Nov 1837
PC

Trusts, Commonwealth
(Jamaica)
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Wilson v Wilson and others By Bill Of Revivor; Grosslob others v Same [1838] EngR 18; (1838) 2 Keen 249; (1838) 48 ER 624
1838


Trusts
Where the payment of rents, in consequence of disputes among the trustees, had been permitted to fall into arrear, on a 'bill filed by the Plaintiff, who was entitIed to the renta and profits for her life, against the truetees, the Court ordered a receiver to be appointed, and the costs of the suit to be paid by the trustees.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Cherry v Boultbee [1838] EngR 541; (1838) 2 Keen 319; (1838) 48 ER 651 (B)
6 Apr 1838
CA
Lord Langdale MR
Wills and Probate, Trusts
TB was indebted to CB, his sister, in the sum of £1878. He became bankrupt, and shortly after his bankruptcy C B made her will, giving legacies of £500 and £2,000 to her executors, in trust to pay the interest thereof (as to the £500 after the decease of her mother), to TB for his life, without power of anticipation and free from his debts ; and after his decease to pay the principal to such persons as he should appoint, and in default of appointment to his executors and administrators, for his and their own use and benefit. TB died without having obtained his certificate, and without having attempted to make any appointment. Held: The executors of the testatrix had no right to set off the debt due from TB to the testatrix against the legacies, but that the assignee of TB was entitled to so much of the legacies as the assets were sufficient to pay. A person who owes an estate money, that is, who is bound to increase the general mass of the estate by a contribution of his own, cannot claim a share given to him out of that mass estate without first making the contribution that completes it.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilkinson And Another v Godefroy [1839] EngR 396; (1839) 9 Ad & E 536; (1839) 112 ER 1315
17 Jan 1839


Trusts, Equity
The court considered a claim for the recovery of money from a stakeholder to whom it had been entrusted, in which case a demand is necessary to throw upon the depositee a duty to repay.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Laing v Laing [1839] EngR 1076; (1839) 10 Sim 315; (1839) 59 ER 636 (A)
15 Nov 1839


Wills and Probate, Trusts
Testator gave £5000 stock to a female infant, to be paid or transferred to, or settled on her, by his executors, by such deed or instrument in writing, as they should think most prudent and proper, on her attaining 21. The infant married in the testator’s lifetime, and afterwards attained 21. The Court ordered the stock to be transferred to her, on her sole receipt.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Balls v Strutt (1841) 1 Hare 146
1841

Sir James Wigram VC
Trusts
"It is a principle in this court, that a trustee shall not be permitted to use the powers which the trust may confer upon him at law, except for the legitimate purposes of his trust;..."
1 Citers


 
Saunders v Vautier (1841) 4 Beav 115 affd Cr & Ph 240; [1841] EWHC Ch J27; [1841] EWHC Ch J82; (1841) Cr & Ph 240; [1841] EngR 629; (1841) 4 Beav 115; (1841) 49 ER 282
7 May 1841

Lord Cottenham
Trusts, Wills and Probate
A direction in a will stated that the income from certain shares was to be accumulated and invested until the beneficiary attained the age of 25. On attaining his majority at 21 years, the beneficiary sought termination of the trust, and transfer of the legal title in the property to him. Held: The beneficiary was entitled to call for the property. The intention of the testator was that the beneficiary would ultimately take the property, but had merely sought to postpone the date on which this would happen. Beneficiaries who are sui juris and together entitled to the whole beneficial interest can put an end to the trust and direct the trustees to hand over the trust property as they may direct: "once something has been given to a person the court will not enforce any attempt to keep it out of his grasp until a later date."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte Newton [1841] EngR 743; (1841) 4 Y and C Ex 518; (1841) 160 ER 1112 (A)
3 Jun 1841


Trusts
Where money is in Court under a railway act, previous to being laid out in lands to be settled '' to the like uses," the Court will lend its aid to an advantageous purchase beyond the amount of the money in Court; and will direct the extra costs to be paid out of the money in Court.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Pettingall v Pettingall (1842) LJ Ch 176
1842


Charity, Trusts
The testator left funds in trust to provide for maintenance of his horses and dogs for as long as they should live. Held: The gift was valid.

 
Neale v Hodgson [1842] EngR 908; (1842) 5 Beav 159; (1842) 49 ER 538
22 Jul 1842


Trusts
Subject, to the life-estate of her husband, a wife had the absolute power of appointing a trust fund, which, in default of appointment, was limited to her next of kin, and there was a proviso that if the husband became bankrupt the dividends should no longer be paid to him. The wife died first, and appointed the fund to her husband. Held, that he became entitled thereto absolutely, and had a right at once to have a transfer thereof.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas v Thomas [1843] EngR 1216 (A); (1843) 7 Beav 47
7 Dec 1843


Children, Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Campbell v Campbell [1844] EngR 536 (A); (1844) 7 Beav 482
8 May 1844


Trusts
Executors were directed to apply a competent part of the interest of a fund towards the maintenance and education of the testator's son, during his minority, and accumulate the rest; and, after attaining twenty-one, to apply a moiety of the dividends for his support till he attained twenty-five, and to transfer the fund at twenty-five, with a gift over if he died between twenty-one and twenty-five. The son attained twenty-one between the periods of paymerit of the half-yearly dividends. Held, that there should be no apportionment, and that he was entitled to the whole half-yearly dividend received after he came of age.
[ Commonlii ]
 
In re Sharp [1845] ChD 286
1845

Cotton LJ
Trusts
(Year?) Cotton LJ discussed a power to invest "upon the debentures or securities of any railway or other public company" and said:- "It is true that he refers to railway companies, but he also adds, 'or any other public company'; and I think it would be a wrong interpretation of the will to say that those words, because they follow the reference to railway companies, must be confined to companies similar to them or to companies incorporated in the same way as railway companies are, namely, by special Act of Parliament."
1 Citers


 
Wadeson v Duke [1846] EngR 231; (1846) 1 Coop T Cott 160; (1846) 47 ER 794
1846


Trusts
After decree the Trustees should not lay out money on mortgage without the previous approbation of the Court
[ Commonlii ]
 
Erskine v Wright (1846) 8 D 863
1846

Lord Mackenzie
Scotland, Trusts
The provisions of the Act would be capable of being defeated if it had remained possible to tie up lands in perpetuity by the creation of a series of liferents. This would soon supersede all other methods of doing so if it were competent.
Entail Amendment (Scotland) Act 1848
1 Citers


 
James Anderson Berry v George Morse And Others [1847] EngR 344; (1847) 1 HLC 71; (1847) 9 ER 678
22 Mar 1847


Trusts
A, by a trust, settlement, gave to his son “a like sum of £5000 sterling, payable, etc., after my decease, from which provision shall be deducted any sum that I have already advanced, or may still advance for him, to enable him to carry on his business.” A entered into a guarantie for £2000 for the firm of which his son was a partner. A was compelled to pay that sum, and the firm afterwards becoming bankrupt, he obtained from its assets a small dividend. Held, that this was an advance to the son, which came within the description of money advanced to the son to enable him to carry on his business, and that the son could only claim the balance of the £5000, after deducting the sum thus advanced. The practice of allowing the costs in such a case to be paid out of the estate, was disregarded.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Fordyce v Sir Henry Bridges, Catherine Elizabeth Mary Reid, Madeline Curling, Jane Curling, Isabella Curling, Agnes Catherine Thomson, Mary Louisa Thomson, Emily Harriet Thomson, Gertrude Eliza Thomson, Florence Jessie Thomson, And Jo; 15-Mar-1848 - [1848] EngR 347 (C); (1847-1848) 2 Coop T Cott 325
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.