Talbot v Marshfield; 15 Jun 1865

References: [1865] EngR 589, (1865) 2 Dr & Sm 549, (1865) 62 ER 728
Links: Commonlii
Trustees took counsel’s opinion as to whether they should exercise a discretionary power to advance part of their trust fund for the benefit of some of the cestuis que trust: and others of the cestuis que trust having filed a bill to restrain them from exercising such discretion, they took a second opinion as to their defence in the
suit.
Upon summons for production by the Plaintiffs :
Held, that, the first case and opinion having reference to the dealings with the trust estate, all the cestuis que trust had a right to inspection, and the Court ordered them to be produced ; but that the second case and opinion being after suit instituted, the Plaintiffs had no right to production.
This case cites:

  • See Also – Talbot -v- Marshfield ([1864] EngR 762, Commonlii, (1864) 2 Dr & Sm 285, (1864) 62 ER 630)
    Payment into Curt. Discretionary Power in Trustees Over Fund, – Although the mere existence of a discretionary power in trustees over a fund affords no reason why the Court should not order payment of the fund into Court, unless such payment into . .

This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Dawson-Damer and Others -v- Taylor Wessing Llp and Others ChD (Bailii, [2015] EWHC 2366 (Ch))
    The clamants sought orders under the 1998 Act for disclosure of documents about them by the defendant solicitors and others. The defendants said that the request would require the consideration of a very large number of documents, considering in . .