1841. HOME บ. PRINGLE and HUNTER. The result is that, in my opinion, the judgment below was correct, in holding that Mr. Pringle's estate is not liable for the loss sustained by the insolvency of Mr. Molle; and if he did not make himself liable for such loss, it is clear that Mr. Hunter did not; for every circumstance from which the responsibility of Mr. Pringle could arise, exists in a less degree in the case of Mr. Hunter. If the case fails so far, there is, I think, no ground for the general account; for if Messrs. Pringle and Hunter are not chargeable with Mr. Molle's balance, their own accounts have been regularly examined and settled according to the provisions of the trust-deed, and no case is made for opening them. It is indeed said, that Mr. Pringle has in those accounts been allowed a salary of 50 l. per annum, to which, as trustee, he was not entitled ; and if that question had arisen for decision in a proper form, and under circumstances calling for a judgment upon the point, whether a trustee could create an office for himself out of his trust so as to derive profit from his trust, I should have had great difficulty in assenting to what appears to have been assumed, rather than decided, in Scotland. In such a case there cannot be any good reason for any difference in the rules adopted in the two countries, and there cannot be any doubt as to the inconvenience and danger of such a practice; but in this case, if the 50l. per annum were to be disallowed, and struck out of Mr. Pringle's accounts, he would be entitled to charge for all actual expenses incurred by the duty he performed as cashier; so that there is no probability that the estate would profit by opening the accounts in this respect. And when it is considered that this allowance arose from an appointment made in the presence of the pursuer, and was to be paid out of rents the surplus of which was his, and that it has been sanctioned by the accountant who had authority from the truster to settle the trustees' accounts, I cannot think that it would be advisable for such a purpose to interfere with the judgment below; particularly when it appears that such allowances have been usual in Scotland, and that there is something like judicial authority for them, as in Montgomerie v. Wauchope (b). I think also, that the House would be very reluctant, when the principal object of the suit fails, to give any relief upon so small a part of the case; particularly where the record is loaded with charges and accusations of personal fraud and wilful dereliction of duty against Mr. Pringle and Mr. Hunter, of which there is not only no proof, but for which there does not appear at any time to have been any reasonable ground for suspicion; and for introducing which into the pleadings I have not seen or heard any justification. And this leads to the only remaining question, that of costs, which is the only one upon which I have entertained any doubt: and if I had been sitting in the Court below, considering the failure of the case made against the trustees, and the unjustifiable charges brought against them, I should perhaps have thought it just that they should be indemnified in costs, by directing the pursuer to pay them. But in this House the case is different. A Court of Appeal does not interfere in the question of costs without reluctance in any case, and generally will not entertain an appeal for costs alone, and the question of costs can only arise upon the cross-appeal. I am therefore of opinion that both appeals should be dismissed, with costs. (b) Fac. Coll. 4 June 1822. 1841. HOME v. PRINGLE and HUNTER. 1841. HOME v. PRINGLE and HUNTER. It was accordingly ordered, &c. "That the original appeal be dismissed, and that the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor of the 17th of March 1836, in so far as it was not recalled by the two interlocutors of the Lords of the First Division of the 30th of November 1837, or either of them, be affirmed; and that the two last-mentioned interlocutors be affirmed, with costs and that the two cross-appeals be dismissed, with costs." Deed. Creditors. Public Office. A. executed a deed, conveying and assigning his property to trus- Assignment, tees, for the benefit of creditors. The operative part of the deed was in these words :-" All and sundry superiorities, lands and heritages, debts heritable and moveable, and whole goods, gear, sums of money, and effects; and in general my whole means and estate, heritable and moveable, of whatever nature or denomination, or wherever situated, presently belonging to me."-HELD, that these words did not pass the profits of a public office at that time filled by the grantor. Semble, that the profits of a public office cannot be assigned for the benefit of creditors. THIS was an appeal against two judgments, one interlocutory, pronounced by the Lord Ordinary, and the other final, by the Court of Session in Scotland. The Appellant held the patent office of Keeper of the Register of Sasines, for the shire of Renfrew and regalities of Glasgow and Paisley. He was appointed to the office in 1792, as one of the joint-keepers, the other being Mr. Frederick Fotheringham. At that time the Appellant became bound by deed to make certain payments from the profits of the office to his sisters, who were then alive. Mr. Fotheringham died in 1830, and the Appellant, who had been previously released from the other charges, then became sole patentee of the office. Having fallen into difficulties, he executed a trust-deed, appointing the Respondent trustee for the benefit of his creditors. The question in the case turned on the meaning of the conveyance in trust, the words of which were:-" All and sundry superiorities, lands and heritages, debts heritable and moveable, 1840. HILL v. PAUL. and whole goods, gear, sums of money, and effects; per |