« ZurückWeiter »
relation, acquired an intimate knowledge of his property and liabilities, and was particularly consulted as to a compromise of securities given by P. for a debt which C. considered not to be recoverable to the full amount, purchased these securities for less than their nominal amount, without notice to P., after he had ceased to be his counsel. Held, that C's purchase, while the compromise proposed by P. was feasible, was in trust for P.; and that he was entitled only to the sum he had paid, with interest according to the
course of the Court.-Carter v. Palmer, p. 657. SESSION, COURT OF. See JURISDICTION. SETTLEMENT. See Dower. DISTRIBUTIONS.
A husband, by post-nuptial contract, after granting an an
nuity to his wife, bound himself his heirs and executors, to pay her, or any person appointed by her, in writing, during her life, with or without the husband's consent, and whether she should survive or predecease him, and have issue or not, the sum of 3,0001., or other lesser sum, as she should direct, at the first term of Whitsunday or Martinmas next after the husband's death, in case he should survive or predecease her without leaving issue of the marriage, or at the first of those terms after failure of the issue, in case she should survive leaving issue of the marriage, or at any of the said terms after any of these events; so that no part of the said sum should be raised during the life of the husband, or the joint existence of the wife and the issue of the marriage : with proviso, that in case the wife should survive the husband and the issue of the marriage, and recover payment of the said sum or any part of it, her annuity should suffer restriction equal to the interest of the sum recovered. The wife survived the husband, and died without having had issue, and without recovering or disposing of any part of the
3,0001. Held by the Lords (reversing the judgment of the Court of
Session), that, in the event which happened, the 3,0001. belonged to the wife's estate, and her personal representative was entitled to it from the husband's estate.--Dill
v. Haddington, p. 168. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. See AGREEMENT, 2. PRACTICE, 9, 10, 11. VENDOR AND PURCHASER.
SUBSTITUTE. See Trust. JURISDICTION.
A private Act of Parliament made for the construction of
on goods and parcels alone. Held that this did not pre-
v. Wauchope, p. 710.
1. A trust disposition and deed of settlement conveyed gene-
rally the truster's whole heritage to trustees, containing no
called the heiress of entail as defender.
sion), that it was not competent for the heiress of entail to oppose the completion of feudal titles, by the trustees, to the whole of the lands comprised in the trust disposition; and that they (provided they were duly appointed) were entitled to a conveyance of the whole lands, according to the intent of the trust disposition, but without prejudice to the rights of any party to the lands.--Preston v.
Melville, p. 16. Estates in Scotland were conveyed by trust disposition to
three trustees, to collect and apply the rents as therein mentioned, with 100 l. a year for their trouble, besides all the necessary expenses of managing the estates ; and with power to appoint and remove factors, pay their salaries, and settle their accounts annually; and, within six months after clearance with the factors, to get their own accounts approved by an accountant, whose approbation would be a discharge to them; each being liable only for his own actual intromissions, and no farther liable for the factors than that they should be reputed responsible at the time of their appointment. The trustees appointed one of themselves to be factor, with a salary; and he, though of undoubted responsibility at that time, afterwards fell to owe large balances, at the annual settlements of accounts ; whereon one of the trustees, who was cashier, urged him to pay up; but the balances against him increasing, both trustees, after failing in their exertions to obtain payment, revoked his appointment as factor, and he became bank
rupt, owing a large debt to the trust-estate. Held by the Lords (affirming decrees of the Court of Session
in Scotland, in an action raised by the first heir of entail, to whom the trustees were bound to account for their management):
Ist, That the appointment of one of the trustees to be factor was not of itself such a breach of trust as subjected the other trustees to all the consequences resulting from it.
2dly, That there was not such gross negligence, in the two trustees permitting the factor to retain balances, as to subject them to liability for the ultimate balance due from
him to the trust-estate. The appointment, by trustees, of one of their number to be
factor to the trust-estates, would not of itself make them liable for his defaults ; but by so making him their
agent they would be liable for his defaults as agent, and not as co-trustee, in the same way that they would be liable for the defaults of any other person whom they might appoint to the office. The principle of the rule is
the same in Scotland as in England. The mere fact of trustees allowing balances to remain against
their factor at the annual settlement of his accounts, where it is impossible to include his whole receipts and payments for the year, is not a breach of trust, or such culpable negligence as would make them liable for the ultimate balances due from him to the trust: Secus, if they assented to his contrivances to retain larger balances than were
necessary for the management of the trust. A trustee does not, by being cashier to the trust-estate, incur
any additional liability in respect of its management
beyond what he was subject to as trustee. The rule of the Courts in England, preventing trustees from
having any office with profit under the trust, or any remuneration for their trouble, beyond what the trust-deed allows them, is so beneficial, that a different rule ought not to be sanctioned in Scotland. (Quære, whether the contrary practice there is not assumed, rather than decided, to be legal).- Home v. Pringle, p. 264. 2. N. A. made a will, with certain trusts relating to his real
and personal estate, and appointed trustees to carry them into execution. One of these trusts was for the payment of provisions of 2,500 1. for the younger children, and of 5001. for the eldest daughter, R. A. B. was one of the executors and trustees under the will. An Act of Parliament was obtained to carry some of the trusts of this will into execution; and under this Act, lands devised by N. A. were sold. The trustee under the Act was W.L. On a bill filed against him by the legatee of the 2,500 l., he sought to take advantage of the payment by him of that sum to R. A. B. Held, that R. A. B.'s receipt was no discharge of W. Li's liability, as by the terms of the Act he was absolutely bound to pay the debts and discharge the children's portions; and it was not set up in the answer, nor proved, that R. A. B. had specifically received this money as trustee for his daughter.- Lawrence v. Blake, p. 504.
VENDOR AND PURCHASER. See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
1. Trustees for sale of a manor described it in advertise-
of Equity would not enforce against trustees specific per-
tui qui trust, and incapable of being ascertained.—Id. ibid.
ance, without compensation, the decree was accordingly so
varied, the purchaser paying the costs of the suit.-Id. ibid.
W. had for some years received money on the tonnage levied
on goods and parcels alone. Held, that this did not
END OF VOL. VIII.