Adey v Arnold
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 July 1852 |
| Date | 23 July 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 42 E.R. 940
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD ST. LEONARDS.
S. C. 16 Jur. 1123. See Isaacson v. Harwood, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 228; Holland v. Holland, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 452.
940 ADEY V. ARNOLD 2 DE 0. M. ft 0. 432. [432] adey v, arnold. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord St. Leonards. July 22, 23, 1852. [S. C. 16 Jur. 1123. See Isaacson v. Harwood, 1868, L. R. 3 Ch. 228 ; Holland v. Holland, 1869, L. R. 4 Ch. 452.] A breach of trust will constitute merely a simple contract debt, unless there is something in the creation of the trust to raise a liability on covenant against the trustee. This was an appeal by one of the Defendants, William Arnold, who had been a co-trustee with the testator, Thomas Arnold, of a certain indenture, dated the 29th September 1803, being the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Annesley, from so-much of a decree made by the Vice-Chancellor Lord Cranworth on further directions,, and bearing date the 26th July 1851, as declared that the estate of Thomas Arnold was liable to make good a sum of .1970, 18s. 6d. produced by the sale of 2095 6s. 9d. Bank three pounds per cent, annuities subject to the trusts of the indenture, and that this liability was to be treated as a simple contract debt due to the persons beneficially interested under the trusts of the indenture, and not as a specialty debt,, as had been found by the Master to whom the cause had on the hearing beei* referred. The suit, which was instituted in August 1844, was a creditors' suit for the-administration of the estate of Thomas Arnold, who died on the 7th February 1844. The present Appellant, who was one of the executors of Thomas Arnold, by his answer-stated that he was induced by the testator to accept conjointly with him the office-of trustee under the marriage settlement of Marcus John Annesley, Esq., and Frances; Charlotte, his wife, for whom the testator also acted as solicitor; [433] that afterwards he, the Defendant, being desirous of resigning his office of trustee of such settlement, before any new trustee was appointed of the funds subject thereto was; induced by the testator, on a memorandum directing him so to do, signed by M. J. Annesley and F. C. Annesley, to execute a power of attorney for the receipt of the dividends and the transfer of the fund subject to the trusts of the settlement, and that the same was under such power of attorney transferred into the sole name of the testator, who afterwards sold the whole of the fund and applied the proceeds thereof to his own purposes : the Defendant submitted that he was entitled to be indemnified out of the estate of the testator against all liabilities to which he had become subject by reason of this sale and appropriation, in priority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monypenny v Monypenny
...estate. They referred to Parkhurst v. Smith dem. Dormer (Willes, 327, 332); Cholmmdeley v. Clinton (2 Jac. & W. 1); Adey v. Arnold (2 De G. M. & G-. 432); Alexander v. Brame (7 De G. M. & G. 525). Mr. Daniel in reply. Judgment reserved. the lord chancellor, after stating the nature of the c......
-
Obee v Bishop
...where there [140] is no instrument under seal creates only a simple contract debt; Charlton v. Lowe (3 P, W. 328); Adey v. Arnold (2 De G. M. & G. 432) ; Srewe v. Cox (3 W. R. 276, V. C. W.). After the death of a defaulting trustee or personal representative we submit that the Statute of Li......