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.’
Judges:
Cranworth LJ
Citations:
(1851) 1 De GM and G 247, [1851] EngR 994, (1851) 1 De G M and G 247, (1851) 42 ER 547
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Nestle v National Westminster Bank CA 6-May-1992
The claimant said that the defendant bank as trustee of her late father’s estate had been negligent in its investment of trust assets.
Held: The claimant had failed to establish either a breach of trust or any loss flowing from it, though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Trusts
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.268064