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 l. for the younger children, and of 5007. for the eldest daughter, R. A. B. was one of the execu tors 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. L.'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. Semble, that if there was a substantial misdescription, a Court W. had for some years received money on the tonnage levied END OF VOL. VIII. |