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: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 98 cases, and was prepared on 13 November 2014.

 
Robinson -v- Robinson (1851) 1 De GM & G 247; [1851] EngR 994; (1851) 1 De G M & G 247; (1851) 42 ER 547
1851
CA
Cranworth LJ
Trusts
The trustee defendants had been directed by their testator to realise his investments and invest the proceeds in one or other of two forms of investment; but the trustees had delayed the realisation of the testator's investments. When they actually sold they realised more than they would have realised if they had sold immediately after the testator's death, but less than if they had sold immediately after the testator's death and had thereupon invested the proceeds in one, rather than the other, of the two authorised forms of investment. The plaintiff sought to charge the trustees for what they would have received if they had followed that course of realisation and investment which in the event would have been the most favourable to the beneficiaries. Held. The claim was rejected. Cranworth LJ said: "Where a man is bound by covenants to do one of two things, and does neither, there in an action by the covenantee, the measure of damage is in general the loss arising by reason of the covenantor having failed to do that which is least, not that which is most, beneficial to the covenantee: and the same principle may be applied by analogy to the case of a trustee failing to invest in either of two modes equally lawful by the terms of the trust."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Beloved Wilkes' Charity, Re; ChD 28-Apr-1851 - [1851] EWHC Ch J52; (1851) 3 Mac & G 440
 
In The Matter Of Atkinson's Trust Estate, [1851] EngR 715 (B); (1851) 4 De G & Sm 548
12 Jul 1851


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Egerton -v- Lord Brownlow; 20-Aug-1851 - [1851] EngR 789; (1851) 1 Sim NS 464; (1851) 61 ER 180
 
Thackwell -v- Gardiner [1851] EngR 956; (1851) 5 De G & Sm 58; (1851) 64 ER 1017
2 Dec 1851


Trusts
A bond was vested in a trustee, in trust, as to income for a married woman for her life, with remainder, as to the corpus in trust for her issue, and in default of issue, in trust for such persons as the married woman alone, notwithstanding coverture, should by deed or instrument in writing, to be by her sealed and delivered in the presence of and attested by two credible witnesses, appoint. The husband being indebted to his bankers on the balance of an account current, the married woman deposited the bond with the bankers, with a letter signed by her, to the effect that, in consideration of the bankers paying, or having already paid, the cheques of the husband, or otherwise advancing him sums of money, she thereby guaranteed the repayment thereof ; and that she deposited as a collateral security the bond which she undertook to assign to the bankers, on request. Held, that the consideration was sufficient, and that the separate life interest of the wife was effectually charged ; but that, the letter not having been executed and attested as required by the power, the Court would not, under the circumstances, give effect to it as an appointment.
[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of Boden's Estate, And Of The Trustee Act, 1850 [1851] EngR 1010 (B); (1851) 9 Hare 820
22 Dec 1851


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Lewis -v- Hillman; 1852 - (1852) 3 HLC 607
 
In Re Field's Trust [1852] EngR 715 (A); (1852) 16 Beav 146
11 Jun 1852


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Lyon -v- Baker; 30-Jun-1852 - [1852] EngR 796 (A); (1852) 5 De G & Sm 622

 
 The Trusts of Waite's Will Ex parte Pugh; 2-Jul-1852 - [1852] EngR 803; 11 Vict c 96; (1852) 61 ER 428
 
Rochdale Canal Company -v- King (1853) 16 Beav 630
1853

Sir John Romilly MR
Land, Trusts
Sir John Romilly MR said: "The principle on which the Defendants rely is one often recognised by this Court, namely, that if one man stand by and encourage another, though but passively, to lay out money, under an erroneous opinion of title, or under the obvious expectation that no obstacle will afterwards be interposed in the way of his enjoyment, the Court will not permit any subsequent interference with it, by him who formally promoted and encouraged those acts of which he now either complains or seeks to take advantage. This is the rule laid down in Dann v Spurrier (7 Ves 231), Powell v Thomas (6 Hare 300), and many other cases, to which it is unnecessary to refer, because the principle is clear."
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Egerton -v- Earl of Brownlow; HL 1853 - [1853] 4 HLC 484; [1853] 4 HLC 1; [1853] EngR 885; (1853) 10 ER 359

 
 Stone -v- Godfrey; 10-Dec-1853 - [1853] EngR 1085; (1853) 1 Sm & G 590; (1853) 65 ER 258
 
Ramsden -v- Smith (1854) 61 ER 734; [1854] EngR 460; (1854) 2 Drew 298
2 May 1854


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of The Trusts Of Pedder's Settlement [1854] EngR 1022; 11 Vict C 96; (1854) 43 ER 1116
15 Dec 1854


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
In Re Hodgson's Trust [1854] EngR 1025; (1854) 1 K & J 178; (1854) 69 ER 419
17 Dec 1854


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Mills -v- Drewitt (1855) 20 Beav 632
1855


Trusts, Equity
A beneficiary cannot be divested of his beneficial interest in the capital of the trust by the operation of the doctrine of laches. 'A trustee who is in possession of property which he admits to be trust property cannot plead the laches of the cestui que trust in a suit to enforce the trust in respect of that property.'
1 Citers



 
 Willeter -v- Dobie; 23-Jun-1856 - [1856] EngR 706; (1856) 2 K & J 647; (1856) 69 ER 942

 
 Stanley -v- Jackman; 10-Feb-1857 - [1857] EngR 259 (C); (1857) 23 Beav 450
 
Affleck -v- Affleck [1857] EngR 369; (1856-1857) 3 Sm & G 394; (1857) 65 ER 709
26 Mar 1857


Trusts, Health
Covenant by G. on his marriage; that if he came into possession, he would exercise the power of jointuring, which, by the terms of the will, could only be exercised by a tenant for life in possession. G., before coming into possession, became of unsound mind. Held, that the covenant was a defective execution of the power, which this Court would enforce against the remainder-man. A previous covenant by a person of sound mind must prevail against any subsequent mental incapacity.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Earle -v- Bellingham; 24-Jul-1857 - (1857) 24 Beav 448; [1857] EngR 795 (B); (1857) 24 Beav 445
 
In Re Kingsley's Trust [1858] EngR 1022 (B); (1858) 26 Beav 84
26 Jul 1858


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Clavering -v- Ellison (1859) 7 HLC 707
1859

Lord Cranworth
Trusts
Any provision determining or divesting an estate held on trust "must be such that the Court can see from the beginning, precisely and distinctly, upon the happening of what event it was that the preceding vested estate was to determine"
1 Citers


 
In Re Marsden's Trust [1859] EngR 676; (1859) 4 Drew 594; (1859) 62 ER 228
4 Jun 1859


Trusts
Where the donee exercises a power of appointment in favour of one of several objects of the power, with a view to the benefit of a stranger, the appointment is fraudulent and void, even although the appointee is ignorant of the fraud, and the motive of the donee is not morally wrong. Therefore, where a married woman having a power to appoint a fund, of which she received the income for her life, among her chiidren, appointed the whole fund at her death to her eldest daughter, in order that thereout the daughter should benefit her father, but the daughter was not informed of the botherís intention until after her motherís death. Held, that such appointment was void.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ingle - -Richards (No 1) (1860) 28 Beav 281
1860


Trusts

1 Citers


 
Heywood -v- Heywood [1860] EngR 1155; (1860) 29 Beav 9; (1860) 54 ER 527
19 Nov 1860
RC

Family, Trusts

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Clayton -v- Clarke [1860] EngR 1296; (1860) 2 Giff 575; (1860) 66 ER 241
19 Dec 1860


Children, Trusts
Bill by a next friend of an infant to administer an estate, in respect of which, it appeared from the answer, the Defendants had already rendered an account in another suite. The Defendants submitting that the suit was not instituted for the benefit of the infant-the Court directed an inquiry whether any benefit had accrued from the suit to the infant; and the Chief Clerk having certified in the negative, the Court refused to allow the next friend his costs.
[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of Anne Jane Jones, A Lunatic, And In The Matter Of The Trustee Act, 1850 [1860] EngR 1301; (1860) 2 De G F & J 554; (1860) A)
21 Dec 1860


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lady Mary Topham -v- The Duke Of Portland [1862] EngR 870; (1862) 31 Beav 525; (1862) 54 ER 1242
30 Jun 1862


Trusts
The donee of a trust power cannot execute it for an object foreign to purposes for which it was intended, and therefore an ordinary power in a marriage settlement of appointment amongst the children cannot be made subservient to the accomplishment of any particular fancies or inclinations which the donee of the power may have as to the profession in life which a child may choose to adopt, nor can it be exercised in such a mode as to prevent a child marrying a particular person.
An appointment was made to A. (an object of a power) with trusts in favor of B (another object), but intended to accomplish a purpose not warranted by the power. Held, that it could not be treated as an absolute appointment of B. discharged of the void purpose. An appointment, under a previous agreement, that the appointee will deal with the appointed fund in a manner foreign to the purposes for which the power was intended is void, and so is such an appointment where the agreement is subsequent, if accomplished by the inevitable influence possessed by the appointor over the appointee. A parent, having by his settlement an exclusive power of appointment of a fund to his children, was desirous of preventing a daughter marrying a particular gentleman. For that purpose, he appointed part of the fund to his son, who, about a month afterWards, settled it on discretionary trusts in favor of the daughter, the object being to prevent that marriage. Held, that this was one transaction, that the object aimed at was foreign to the purposes for which the power was intended, and that the appointment was altogether void in equity.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Milroy -v- Lord (1862) 4 De GF & J 264; [1862] EWHC Ch J78; [1862] EngR 951; (1862) 4 De G F & J 264; (1862) 45 ER 1185
26 Jul 1862
CA
Knight-Bruce LJ and Turner LJ
Company, Equity, Trusts
The donor executed a transfer of 50 shares. The shares were only transferable by entry in the books of the bank. No such transfer was ever made. The defendant had a power of attorney authorising him to transfer the donorís shares and after the deed the donor gave him a further power of attorney authorising him to receive dividends on the shares. The donor died and an action was bought to enforce the transfer. Held: The transaction was imperfect and incomplete and that the donor might have perfected it and completed it by a transfer. Turner LJ Sid: "in order to render a voluntary settlement valid and effectual, the settlor must have done everything which, according to the nature of the property comprised in the settlement, was necessary to be done in order to transfer the property and render the settlement binding upon him. He may of course do this by actually transferring the property to the persons for whom he intends to provide, and the provision will then be effectual, and it will be equally effectual if he transfers the property to a trustee for the purposes of the settlement, or declares that he himself holds it in trust for those purposes; and if the property be personal, the trust may, as I apprehend, be declared either in writing or by parol; but, in order to render the settlement binding, one or other of these modes must, as I understand the law of this Court, be resorted to, for there is no equity in this Court to perfect an imperfect gift. The cases I think go further to this extent, that if the settlement is intended to be effectuated by one of the modes to which I have referred, the Court will not give effect to it by applying another of those modes. If it is intended to take effect by transfer, the Court will not hold the intended transfer to operate as a declaration of trust, for then every imperfect instrument would be made effectual by being converted into a perfect trust. These are the principles by which, as I conceive, this case must be tried."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ] - [ Commonlii ]
 
Re Kenneth Mackenzie's Settlement [1863] EngR 323; (1863) 32 Beav 253; (1863) 55 ER 100
21 Feb 1863


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Prideaux -v- Lonsdale [1863] EngR 363; (1863) 4 Giff 159; (1863) 66 ER 661
16 Mar 1863


Family, Trusts
A settlement made by a woman of her personal property after her engagement to be married set aside at the suit of the husband, although he was told before the marriage that she had executed a settlement affecting her property. It appearing that neither she herself nor her husband was accurately informed of the nature and effect of the trusts of the settlement. Held, that the doctrine of constructive notice of the contents of an instrument was not sufficient to bind the husband on the ground of acquiescence. Suppression of the truth, or misrepresentation of a material fact, will vitiate any contract or gift the validity of which depends upon the truth and accuracy of the representation on which it was made.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Re Maxwell's Trusts [1863] EngR 381; (1863) 1 H & M 610; (1863) 71 ER 267
23 Mar 1863


Company, Trusts

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Re Way's Trusts; 1864 - (1864) 2 De G J & S 365

 
 Duke of Portland -v- Topham; CA 1864 - [1863] EngR 1051; (1863) 1 De G J & S 517; (1863) 46 ER 205

 
 The Duke Of Portland And Others -v- Lady Mary E Topham And Others; HL 6-Apr-1864 - (1864) 11 HL Cas 32; [1864] EngR 339; (1864) 11 HLC 32; (1864) 11 ER 1242; (1869) LR 5 Ch App 40
 
Meyrick -v- Laws [1864] EngR 879 (A); (1864) 34 Beav 58
21 Dec 1864


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Rede -v- Oakes [1864] EngR 880; (1864) 4 De G J & S 505; (1864) 46 ER 1015
21 Dec 1864


Land, Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Freeman -v- Bowen [1865] EngR 765; (1865) 35 Beav 17; (1865) 55 ER 800
7 Dec 1865


Trusts, Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Re Tichener [1865] EngR 775; (1865) 35 Beav 317; (1865) 55 ER 918
13 Dec 1865


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Tait -v- Lathbury [1865] EngR 784; (1865) 35 Beav 112; (1865) 55 ER 837
15 Dec 1865


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Yeomans -v- Williams [1865] EngR 792; (1865) 35 Beav 130; (1865) B)
20 Dec 1865


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gee -v- Liddell [1866] EngR 67; (1866) 35 Beav 621; (1866) 55 ER 1038
23 Jan 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Ex Parte The Trustees Of The Birmingham Blue-Coat School [1866] EngR 122; (1866) 35 Beav 345; (1866) A)
10 Mar 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Re The Exhall Coal Company (Limited) Re Bleckley [1866] EngR 131; (1866) 35 Beav 449; (1866) 55 ER 970
12 Apr 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Arthur -v- Clarkson [1866] EngR 142; (1866) 35 Beav 458; (1866) A)
25 Apr 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cooper -v- MacDonald [1866] EngR 157 (A); (1866) 35 Beav 504
28 May 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Gee -v- Liddell [1866] EngR 161; (1866) 35 Beav 658; (1866) 55 ER 1053
4 Jun 1866


Trusts

[ Commonlii ]
 
Re Hotchkiss Trusts (1869) 8 Eq 643
1869

Sir William James V-C
Trusts, Litigation Practice
"In this case, if the words of the will had been the same as the words in In re Potter's Trust, I should, without expressing any opinion of my own, simply have followed the decision of Vice-Chancellor Sir R.Malins in that case; because I do not think it seemly that two branches of a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction should be found coming to contrary decisions upon similar instruments, and encouraging as it were a race, by inducing persons who wish for one construction to go to one court and those who wish for another construction to go to another. I should simply have affirmed the Vice-Chancellor's decision, with the intimation of my wish that the whole matter should be brought before a Court of Appeal."


 
 McCormick -v- Grogan; HL 1869 - (1869) LR 4 HL 82; [1869] UKHL 1; (1869-70) LR 4 HL 82
 
Mussumat Thukrain Sookraj Koowar -v- Government, Baboo Ajeet Sing, And Others [1871] EngR 27; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 112; (1871) 20 ER 728
3 Jul 1871
PC

Trusts
In Oude, before its annexation to the British rule, a Rajah was a TaIookdar of a large Talook. A younger branch of his family had a separate Mehal in the possession of A., wholly distinct from and independent of the Talook the Rajah possessed as representing the elder branch of the family. The Oude Government, for fiscal purposes, included A's Mehal with the Rajah's Talook so that the Rajah as the elder branch of the family represented A.'s Mehal at the Court at Lucknow, notwithstanding that A. remained in undisturbed possession as absolute Owner, paying through the Rajah for his Mehal a proportion of the jumma fixed on the Talook. This relation between the Rajah and A. subsisted up to the time of the annexation of Oude by the British Government. While the Government was making a settlement with the Landowners, and A. was about to apply for a distinct settlement of his Mehal, he, and after him his Widow was, induced by the Rajah not to do so, the Rajah in Letters fully recognizing As absolute right to the Mehal. After the suppression of the rebellion in Oude, and the Government had recognized the Talookdary tenure with its rights, a provisional settlement of the Talook including A.'s Mehal, was made with the Rajah ; but before a Sunnud was granted to him, Government confiscated half his estate for concealment of Arms. The Rajah suppressed the fact of the trust relation of the Mehal of A., and contrived that it should be included in the half part of the estate the Government had confiscated ; which Mehal the Government as a reward granted to Oude loyalists. A.'s Widow brought a suit against the Government and the Grantees for the restoration of the Mehal and a settlement, The Financial Commissioner held that as the Rajah was the registered Owner of the Mehal of A., included in his Talook, it had been properly forfeited. Such finding reversed on appeal, on the ground that A. was the acknowledged cestui que trust of the Rajah, and that A.'s Widow, as equitable Owner was not affected as between her and the Government by the act of confiscation of half the Rajah's Talook.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Faez Buksh Chowdry -v- Fukeeroodeen Mahomed Ahassun Chowdry [1871] EngR 39; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 234; (1871) 20 ER 775
18 Jul 1871
PC

Trusts, Commonwealth
Suit by A to establish his right to execute Decrees, against B and another, by attachment and sale of lands in possession of C, Bís Son; on the ground, that the lands were held by C benamee, to defeat Bís Creditors. Evidence was given that C was the real Purchaser of the property sought to be attached, and not a benamee holder for B. Nothing but hearsay evidence was given by A that it was a benamee transaction. Held, by the Judicial Committee, following Sreemanhander Dey v Gopalchunder Chackerbutty that although there may be, with respect to benamee transactions, circumstances which might create suspicion and doubt as to the truth of the case, yet that the appellate Court will not decide upon mere suspicion, but upon legal grounds established by evidence, and that from the evidence in the suit, a born fide purchase by C was established.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Juggut Mohini Dossee, And Others,-Appellants; Mussumat Sokheemoney Dossee, And Others,-Respondents [1871] EngR 49; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 289; (1871) 20 ER 795
23 Nov 1871


Trusts, Land
Suit for possessiun of lands dedicated to the religious service of a family Idol, and for the appointment as Sabaet, or Manager of the religious endowment, under a Deed of dedication; against a party in cessession, claiming title as a bona fide Purchaser for value, without notice of the alleged trust, whose title, however, was derivable through the Deed of dedication; held wrongly dismissed by the Court below, the Purchaser proceeded against having had sufficient notice to throw upon him the onus of proving exemption from the religious trusts in the lands, which he had failed to do.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Baboo Lekraj Roy, Baboo Mahtab Chand And Others [1871] EngR 58; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 393; (1871) 20 ER 833
14 Dec 1871
PC

Children, Trusts, Litigation Practice
Suit against the Guardians of a Minor, to recover moneys alleged to be due from the estate of the Minorís Father. The Guardians compromised the suit and the Deed of Compromise were confirmed by the Court. After sixteen years, the Minor, being then of age, brought a suit against the Guardians to recover the mount paid under the Deed of compromise, alleging that the former suit was a, fictitious one, and the compromise fraudulent and collusive between the Plaintiff and his Guardians. On appcal, held, by the Judicial Committee, reversing the judgments of the Courts in India, (1) that, in the circumstances, the Guardians, in their discretion, were justified in making the compromise to protect the Infantís estate, and (2) that the burthen of proving the allegation that the former suit was fictitious and collusive, was upon the Plaintiff, and in the absence of any such evidence by him that no debt was due from the Fatherís estate, the onus probandii was not shifted on the Defandants to negative, such allegations.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Vyse -v- Foster; CA 1872 - (1872) LR 8 Ch App 309
 
Imperial Mercantile Credit Association -v- Coleman (1873) LR 6 HL 189
1873
HL

Company, Trusts
Where a company director puts the benefit of a company contract into a partnership, he is fully accountable even if his partners are entitled to part of the profit and are ignorant of his breach of fiduciary duty.
1 Citers



 
 The London Chartered Bank of Australia -v- William George Lempriere And Others; 6-Feb-1873 - [1873] EngR 3; (1873) 9 Moo PC NS 426; (1873) 17 ER 574

 
 Barnes -v- Addy; 1874 - [1874] 9 ChA 244
 
Richards -v- Delbridge (1874) LR 18 Eq 11
16 Apr 1874
CA
Sir George Jessel MR
Trusts, Equity
The donor purported to make a voluntary gift of leasehold premises and stock in trade by endorsing on the lease "This deed and all thereto belonging I give to E from this time forth, and all the stock in trade." This document was delivered to Eís mother on his behalf. Held: No valid declaration of trust was made in favour of E. For a man to make himself a trustee, he must express an intention to become a trustee.
Jessel MR said: "The principle is a very simple one. A man may transfer his property, without valuable consideration in two ways: he may either do such acts as amount in law to a conveyance or assignment of the property, and thus completely divest himself of the legal ownership, in which case the person who by those acts acquires the property takes it beneficially, or on trust as the case may be; or the legal owner of the property may, by one or other of the modes recognised as amounting to a valid declaration of trust, constitute himself a trustee, and, without an actual transfer of the legal title, may so deal with the property as to deprive himself of its beneficial ownership, and declare that he will hold it from that time forward on trust for the other person. It is true he need not use the words, "I declare myself trustee", but he must do something which is equivalent to it, and use expressions which have that meaning, for, however anxious the court may be to carry out a man's intentions, it is not at liberty to construe the words otherwise than according to their proper meaning."
1 Citers

[ lip ]

 
 Attorney General -v- Webster; 1875 - (1875) LR 20 Eq 483

 
 Yeatman -v- Yeatman; 1877 - (1877) 7 Ch D 201

 
 Gisborne -v- Gisborne; HL 1877 - [1877] 2 AC 300; [1874-80] All ER Rep Ext 1698

 
 Sri Gajapathi Nilamani Patta Maha Devi Garu -v- Sri Gajapathi Radhamani Patta Maha Devi Garu; PC 3-Jul-1877 - [1877] UKPC 30

 
 Erlanger -v- New Sombrero Phosphate Company; HL 1878 - (1878) LR 3 App Cas 1218
 
The Ferguson Bequest Fund Case (1879) 6 R 486
1879

Lord Shand, Lord President Inglis
Scotland, Trusts
The court was asked to look at the sharing of an income stream where a testator intended to benefit a number of voluntary churches. Held: The court gave useful guidance as to options available when competing bodies were deemed still to be under the umbrella of the intention of the trust. Lord President Inglis: "... Where two parties, in the position of those now before us, each claim exclusive right to the property of the religious association to which they both originally belonged it is sometimes impossible to decide the question of property so raised without inquiring which party has adhered to and which has departed from the doctrines and rules of the association. And the same occurs where a particular congregation, having separated itself from the rest of the body, claims to retain the buildings or other property occupied by the congregation, but held on titles permanently connecting the property with the society or church, and justifies its separation on the ground that the majority of the body have renounced or departed from the articles of belief or general laws which formed the bond of union. In such cases it must be observed that the claim is based on allegations of breach of contract, that the subject in dispute is matter of civil and patrimonial right, and that the court cannot decide that question of right without reading and interpreting the contract which imposes on the members adherence to particular doctrines, laws, or usages as conditions of membership of the association ..."
1 Citers



 
 In re Hallett's Estate; Knatchbull -v- Hallett; CA 1880 - (1880) 13 ChD 696
 
Oceanic Steam Navigation Co -v- Sutherberry (1880) 16 Ch D 236
1880


Trusts

1 Citers


 
Re Smith (1880) 42 Ch D 302
1880


Wills and Probate, Trusts
Once an estate has been administered, the personal representative becomes a trustee; and at that stage the court's inherent jurisdiction to control trusts arises allowing if necessary an order for his removal.
1 Citers


 
Ex parte Forder (1881) 25 Sol Journ 720
1881
CA
Lord Selbourne LC
Trusts
A sale of part of the property of the bankrupt was made by a trustee in bankruptcy to two buyers, one of whom was the trustee's under-age son. The contract was not binding on the son for his minority, and the sale was also at an undervalue. Held: The case was decided on that ground, but on a broader view: "Many authorities had laid down emphatically, not only with regard to trustees generally, but with regard to assignees in bankruptcy in particular, that they could not exercise the power of sale given to them for the benefit of the creditors directly or indirectly for the benefit of themselves or of anyone so connected with them as to stand in a position more advantageous than an ordinary purchaser." The sale being to the trustee's son, who was still a minor and so not bound by the contract, and: "How under such circumstances the bankrupt's estate will be bound by the contract it was impossible to conceive. At any rate, the circumstances threw on the trustee the burden of showing that it was a proper contract."
1 Citers



 
 Smith -v- Lucas; CA 1881 - (1881) 18 Ch D 531
 
In re Cross (1882) 20 Ch D 109
1882


Trusts, Equity
The court applied the doctrine of laches and delay to a claim against a trustee, not for the recovery of trust property, but for breach of trust.
1 Citers



 
 Speight -v- Gaunt; CA 20-Jan-1883 - (1882) 22 Ch D 727; [1883] EWCA Civ 1
 
Speight -v- Gaunt (1883) 9 App Cas 1; [1883] UKHL 1
26 Nov 1883
HL
Lord Blackburn
Trusts, Negligence

1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Letterstedt -v- Broers (1884) 9 App Cas 371
1884
PC
Lord Blackburn
Trusts
(South Africa) The court set out the principles underlying a decision to remove a trustee. Lord Blackburn said: "The whole of the matters which have been complained of, and the whole that, if this judgment stands, may yet have to be done by the Board, are matters which they had to do, as having accepted the burthen of carrying out the trusts which on the true construction of the will were imposed upon them, and so become trustees. What they had to do as executors merely, such as paying debts, collecting assets, &c., have long ago been over, and by the terms of the compromise the plaintiff cannot now say they have not been done properly. There may be some peculiarity in the Dutch Colonial law, which made it proper to make the prayer in the way in which it was done to remove them from the office of executor; if so, it has not been brought to their Lordships' notice; the whole case has been argued here, and, as far as their Lordships can perceive, in the Court below, as depending on the principles which should guide an English Court of Equity when called upon to remove old trustees and substitute new ones. It is not disputed that there is a jurisdiction "in cases requiring such a remedy," as is said in Story's Equity Jurisprudence, s. 1287, but there is very little to be found to guide us in saying what are the cases requiring such a remedy; so little that their Lordships are compelled to have recourse to general principles.
Story says, s. 1289, 'But in cases of positive misconduct, Courts of Equity have no difficulty in interposing to remove trustees who have abused their trust; it is not indeed every mistake or neglect of duty, or inaccuracy of conduct of trustees, which will induce Courts of Equity to adopt such a course. But the acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to shew a want of honesty, or a want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity'
It seems to their Lordships that the jurisdiction which a Court of Equity has no difficulty in exercising under the circumstances indicated by Story is merely ancillary to its principal duty, to see that the trusts are properly executed. This duty is constantly being performed by the substitution of new trustees in the place of original trustees for a variety of reasons in non-contentious cases. And therefore, though it should appear that the charges of misconduct were either not made out, or were greatly exaggerated, so that the trustee was justified in resisting them, and the Court might consider that in awarding costs, yet if satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust estate. The reason why there is so little to be found in the books on this subject is probably that suggested by Mr. Davey in his argument. As soon as all questions of character are as far settled as the nature of the case admits, if it appears clear that the continuance of the trustee would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent those beneficially interested, or those who act for them, from working in harmony with the trustee, and if there is no reason to the contrary from the intentions of the framer of the trust to give this trustee a benefit or otherwise, the trustee is always advised by his own counsel to resign, and does so. If, without any reasonable ground, he refused to do so, it seems to their Lordships that the Court might think it proper to remove him; but cases involving the necessity of deciding this, if they ever arise, do so without getting reported. It is to be lamented that the case was not considered in this light by the parties in the Court below, for, as far as their Lordships can see, the Board would have little or no profit from continuing to be trustees, and as such coming into continual conflict with the appellant and her legal advisers, and would probably have been glad to resign, and get out of an onerous and disagreeable position. But the case was not so treated.
In exercising so delicate a jurisdiction as that of removing trustees, their Lordships do not venture to lay down any general rule beyond the very broad principle above enunciated, that their main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries." He referred to cases in which there was a conflict between trustee and beneficiary and continued: "As soon as all questions of character are as far settled as the nature of the case admits, if it appears clear that the continuance of the trustee would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent those beneficially interested, or those who act for them, from working in harmony with the trustee, and if there is no reason to the contrary from the intentions of the framer of the trust to give this trustee a benefit or otherwise, the trustee is always advised by his own counsel to resign, and does so. If, without any reasonable ground, he refused to do so, it seems to their Lordships that the Court might think it proper to remove him; but cases involving the necessity of deciding this, if they ever arise, do so without getting reported."
However: "It is quite true that friction or hostility between trustees and the immediate possessor of the trust estate is not of itself a reason for the removal of the trustees. But where the hostility is grounded on the mode in which the trust has been administered, where it has been caused wholly or partially by substantial overcharges against the trust estate, it is certainly not to be disregarded."
1 Citers


 
Letterstedt -v- Broers [1884] UKPC 1; (1884) 9 App Cas 371
22 Mar 1884
PC
Lord Blackburn
Commonwealth, Trusts
Lack of harmony may be of itself a good reason for a trustee to resign or be dismissed. The test the Court should apply, is that (Lord Blackburn): "if satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust-estate."
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 In re Whiteley, Whiteley -v- Learoyd; CA 1886 - (1886) 33 ChD 347

 
 In re Whiteley; 1886 - (1886) 33 ChD 347

 
 Helmore -v- Smith; 1886 - (1886) 35 Ch D 436

 
 Learoyd -v- Whiteley; HL 1-Aug-1887 - [1887] UKHL 1; (1887) LR 12 App Cas 727; (1887) 12 AC 727

 
 Farrer -v- Farrer's Ltd; 1888 - (1888) 40 ChD 395
 
In re Dugdale, Dugdale -v- Dugdale (1888) 38 ChD 176
1888

Kay J
Trusts
Kay J considered whether a condition in a trust was repugnant: "I apprehend that this is the test. An incident of the estate given which cannot be directly taken away or prevented by the donor cannot be taken away indirectly by a condition which would cause the estate to revert to the donor, or by a conditional limitation or executory devise which would cause it to shift to another person."
1 Citers



 
 Rae -v- Meek; HL 1889 - (1889) 14 App Cas 558

 
 Nunneley -v- Nunneley; 1890 - [1890] 15 App Cas 186

 
 In re Akerman; ChD 1891 - [1891] 3 Ch 212

 
 Forsyth -v- Forsyth; 1891 - [1891] P636
 
In re Richerson, Scales -v- Heyhoe [1892] 1 Ch 379
1892


Trusts
The court considered the doctrine of conversion.
1 Citers


 
Mogridge -v- Clapp [1892] 3 Ch 382
1892


Trusts

1 Citers


 
In re King's Trust (1892) 29 LR Ir 401
1892

Lord Porter MR
Family, Trusts
Lord Porter said it was "little short of disgraceful to our jurisprudence" that in reference to a rule professedly founded on public policy there should be a distinction between a gift of an annuity for life coupled with a proviso for cessation if the donee married (treated as giving a life interest) and a gift until he marries (treated as giving an interest only until marriage).
1 Citers



 
 In Re Beddoe, Downes -v- Cottam; CA 1893 - [1893] 1 Ch 547

 
 Soar -v- Ashwell; CA 1893 - [1893] 2 QB 390

 
 In re Beddoe, Downes -v- Cottam; CA 1893 - [1893] 1 Ch 547
 
Re Owen [1894] 3 Ch 220
1894


Trusts, Limitation
Legacies were charged on land after the death of the life tenant. The life tenant died in 1880. It was not suggested that time ran from the death of the testator in 1854.
1 Citers



 
 In re Duke of Marlborough, Davis -v- Whitehead; 1894 - [1894] 2 Ch 133

 
 Attorney General -v-Worrall; CA 1895 - [1895] 1 QB 99

 
 In re Bennett, Jones -v- Bennett; CA 1896 - [1896] 1 Ch 778

 
 Bray -v- Ford; HL 1896 - [1895Ė99] All ER Rep 1011; [1896] AC 44

 
 Rochefoucald -v- Boustead; 1897 - [1897] 1 Ch 196

 
 In re Lacy; Royal General Theatrical Fund Association -v- Kydd; 1899 - [1899] 2 Ch 149
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.