Between Nathaniel Josling, Plaintiff; and James Karr, Defendant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1840 |
| Date | 16 November 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 194
ROLLS COURT
[494] Between nathaniel johling, Plaintiff; and james karr, Defendant. Nov. 16, 1840. A. purchased a leasehold of B., and paid the purchase-money, but no conveyance was executed. A. bequeathed it to B. for life, with remainders over. A.'s executor filed a bill against B. alone, for a conveyance of the property upon the trusts of the will, not, however, seeking to recover it as assets for the purposes of the executor-ship. Held, that the other cestui que (runts were necessary parties; and, semble, that such a suit might be maintained. In 1825 Thomas Karr the testator purchased two leasehold houses from his son James Karr for 800. He paid the purchase-money, but no assignment was executed to him. Thomas Karr by his will bequeathed these leaseholds to James Karr for life, with remainder to his wife for life, with remainder amongst their children, with certain remainders over, and he appointed the Plaintiff and James Karr his executors. James Karr renounced probate, and the will was proved by the Plaintiff alone, who insisted on having the property conveyed to him on the trusts of the will. In consequence of the refusal of the Defendant James Karr to assign, the Plaintiff filed this bill against him, praying, that the Defendant might be ordered to assign the property to the Plaintiff, as executor, on the trusts of the will, and for an account of the rents. It did not appear whether the leasehold property was required for the payment of debts, and the claim of the Plaintiff seemed based on the trusts declared in the will respecting the property. To this bill the Defendant demurred. Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Rogers, for the demurrer. The Plaintiff claims to have the property assigned to [495] him, not as executor, but as trustee for the other parties; this he is not entitled to. If the testator had had the legal estate, then the executors would have nothing to do but to assent to the legacy, and could only refuse to assent to the specific legacy in the event of its being wanted for payment of debts; in'that ease the legal estate would be in the Defendant. The Plaintiff has no right 3BEAV.4M. FOXLOWE V. AMCOATS 195 to constitute himself a trustee for the several parties interested in this specific bequest, and has no equity to support the bill. But the bill is informal for want of parties, for as the Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v Brady
...Trusts (25 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 862). As to the effect of notice of the assignment, Urquhart v. Urquharl (13 Simons, 613); Joding v. Karr (3 Beav. 494); Fortescue v. Barnett (3 Myl. & K. 36); In re Atkinson (2 De G. M. & G. 140); Watts v. Porter (3 Ellis & B. 743). As to the necessity of filin......