Bate v Hooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 July 1855 |
| Date | 25 July 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 43 E.R. 901
BEFORE THE LORD CHANCELLOR LORD CRANWORTH.
S. C. 3 W. R. 639. See Bell v. Turner, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch. 76.
B DE G. M. A 0. H8. BATE V. HOOPER 901 [338] bate v. hooper. Before the Lord Chancellor Lord Cranworth. July 18, 25, 1855. [S. C. 3 W. R. 639. See Sell v. Turner, 1877, 47 L. J. Ch. 76.] A testator gave the residue of his estate to trustees, who were also his executors, desiring them, immediately after his decease, to convert all his personal estate into money, and to invest the amount "in the Bank of England," and to permit his daughter to receive the rents and profits, dividends or " other annual produce " of his personal estate for her life, for her own use, and after her death the property was to go to her children equally. The testator died in 1825, possessed of, among other things, 24 long annuities, which the executors did not convert, but permitted the tenant for life to enjoy in specie. On the death of the survivor of the executors, his executors also neglected to convert the long annuities. The tenant for life had represented, both to the original executors and to the executors of the survivor, the propriety of a conversion. She had mortgaged her interest, and two of the children had mortgaged their shares in the residue. Upon bill filed by all the children against the executors of the surviving executors and their mother: Held, that the non-conversion was a breach of trust, and that the executors must account for the difference between the value of the long annuities at the end of one year from the date of the testator's death, and their value when paid into Court; that the tenant for life was not liable to refund the over-payments voluntarily made to her, and that the facts disclosed no case of acquiescence either on the part of the tenant for life or those in remainder. This was an appeal by the Plaintiffs, A. W. Bate, M. A. E. Bate and L. Bate, who were the grandchildren of George Rogers, the testator in the cause, from a decree made by the Vice-Chancellor Stuart on the 10th July 1854, whereby he declared that the non-conversion by the representatives of the testator of a sum of 24 long annuities was not a breach of trust [339] of the will of the testator. The testator by his will, bearing date the 20th September 1822, so far as it is material to be stated, gave and bequeathed all the residue of his estate unto John Gibbins and John Barker, their heirs, executors or administrators, or the survivor of them, upon trust, immediately after his decease to convert all his personal estate into money, and to invest the amount " in the Bank of England " in their joint names, and to permit his daughter Eliza to receive the rents and profits of his real estate, and also all the rents and profits, dividends or other annual produce of his personal estate for her life for her own use, and after her decease he gave and devised the said residue to the children of his daughter equally as tenants in common. The testator died in July 1825, and his will was duly proved by his executors, J. Gibbins and J. Barker. J. Barker died in November 1838, and letters of administration to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rulten NO v Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd
...capacity like the English trustee in bankruptcy (Lichfield v Baker (1840) 51 ER 172 LC: 88 RR 527, 531; Bate v Hooper (1855) 104 RR 146; 43 ER 901 LC). It seems, however, more reasonable to hold that a person who, like an ex-ecutor, is acting for the benefit of others, and who in that capac......
-
Rulten NO v Herald Industries (Pty) Ltd
...capacity like the English trustee in bankruptcy (Lichfield v Baker (1840) 51 ER 172 LC: 88 RR 527, 531; Bate v Hooper (1855) 104 RR 146; 43 ER 901 It seems, however, more reasonable to hold that a person who, like an executor, is acting for the benefit of others, and who in that capacity ov......
-
Harsant v Menzies
...the interest payments or of repaying the principal debt. 11 Laws of New Zealand Trusts at [309], citing Bate v Hooper (1855) 5 DEGM 8G 338, 43 ER 901 and Grayburn v Clarkson (1868) LR 3 Ch App In addition, it seems to me that the conundrum faced by the trustees is that, in order to justify ......
-
Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald
...Jur. 608. Fitzgerald v. O'Flaherty 1 Moll. 347. Fitzgerald v. Pringle 2 Moll. 534. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 beav. 336. Bate v. HooperENR 5 De G., M. & G. 338. Royds v. RoydsENR 14 Beav. 54. Fitzgerald v. O'Flaherty 1 Moll. 347. Fitzgerald v. Pringle 2 Moll. 534. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 Beav. 3......