Byrne v Norcott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1851 |
| Date | 25 March 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 130
ROLLS COURT
130 BYRNE V. NORCOTT MBEAV.MS. [336] byrne v. norcott. March 13, 14, 15, 17, 25, 1851. In 1826 a debt due from a firm at Calcutta was assigned to trustees in England, in trust to call in and invest on Indian securities, and accumulate. The debtors, became bankrupts in 1830, and the trustees not having, in the meantime, taken g 'oper steps to call in the money, a considerable portion of the debt was lost, eld, that they were liable for the breach of trust, and ought to make good the-accumulation which would have been produced; secondly, that one of the trustees who had been abroad with his regiment during that period, was equally liable ; but, thirdly, that they were to be excused during such a reasonable time as was. necessary in order to communicate between England and India. Generally, where trustees are guilty of a breach of trust, they must pay the costs of a suit to repair it. By the settlement made on the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Byrne, and dated the 1st of September 1826, a sum of 10,000 sicca rupees, then due from Messrs. Palmer & Co., merchants of Calcutta, and a sum of 4600 sicca rupees, secured by two promissory notes, of the India Government, called " Government paper," which Messrs. Palmer & Co. held for Fanny Byrne, the mother of Mr. Byrne, were assigned to Captain [337] Norcott and Mr. Connell, upon trust, to call in and receive the balance or sum of 10,000 sicca rupees and interest, then due from Messrs. Palmer & Co., and lay out and invest such balance, when received, in their names, in or upon the before-mentioned or some other Indian Government securities; and upon further trust, to receive the interests thereof when invested, and the interest on the 4600 sicca rupees, so standing in the name of the said Fanny Byrne, in order that the same might accumulate at compound interest, until it should be of the value of 4000 sterling, and then to pay the dividends to Mr. Byrne for life, with remainder to Mrs. Byrne for life, with remainder to the children of the marriage. The settlement contained a. power to alter and vary the securities. On the 2d of September 1826 Fanny Byrne wrote to Messrs. Palmer & Co., setting forth the purport or effect of the settlement, and requesting the firm to attend to the instructions they should receive from the trustees. On the 4th of September 1826 Mr. and Mrs. Byrne, and Captain Norcott, and Mr. Connell (the trustees) wrote to Messrs. Palmer & Co., stating the effect of the settlement, and requesting them to. invest the 10,000 sicca rupees, and interest thereon, in such Government securities in India as they might thiuk best, in the trustees' names, and also to invest the dividends-and the interest on the 4600 sicca rupees, that the same might accumulate. Messrs. Palmer & Co. transferred the cash balance in their books to the credit of the trustees, and on the 9th of May 1827 wrote an answer to the letter of the 4th of September 1826, so stating, and that it was necessary to have a special power of attorney to transfer the Government paper into the names of the trustees. [338] Nothing more was done by the trustees; the money remained in the hands-of Messrs. Palmer & Co., who, in 1828 and 1829, sent in their account to Mr. Connell, and in January 1830 they became insolvent, whereby two-thirds of the-12,000 rupees at that time remaining in their hands were lost. On the 13th of January 1830, and before the insolvency was known in London, Mr. Connell wrote to Messrs. Palmer & Co., complaining of their having departed from their instructions given in September 1826, and directing an immediate compliance therewith. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luther v Bianconi
...10 Beav. 412. Lester v. Lester 6 Ir. Chan. Rep. 515. Simes v. EyreENR 6 Hare, 137. Dix v. BurfordENR 19 Beav. 409. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 Beav. 336. Mara v. ManningUNK 8 Ir. Eq. Rep. 218; S. C., 2 J. & L. 311. Scott v. Davis 4 M. & C. 37. De Manneville v. Crompton 1 Ves. & B. 354. Milsingto......
-
MacKen v Hogan
...Rep. 194. Fenwick v. GreenwellENR 10 Beav. 412. Lester v. Lester 6 Ir. Chan. Rep. 515. Simes v. EyreENR 6 Hare, 137. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 Beav. 336. Milrington v. MulgraveUNK 3 Mad. 491. Bateman v. Bateman 13 Law Jour. 673. CHANCERY REPORTS. 285 1862. Rolls. Dec. 5. MACKEN v. HOGAN. 1863.......
-
Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald
...Rep. 252. M'Leod v. AnnesleyUNK 17 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. ......