Candler v Tillett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 1855 |
| Date | 17 December 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 1106
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 505; 4 W. R. 160. Doctrine limited, In re Gasquoine [1894], 1 Ch. 470.
[257] candler v. tillett. Dec. 8, 10, 17, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 4 W. R. 160. Doctrine limited, In re, Gaaijuoiw [1894], 1 Ch. 470.] If one executor does an act which enables his co-executor to obtain sole possession of money belonging to the estate, and which, but for that act, he could not have obtained possession of, and the money is afterwards misapplied by such co-executor, both are liable for the loss. C., who knew that T., his co-executor, owed money to the testator on an equitable mortgage, allowed him to keep the title-deeds in his sole possession, taking no steps SBBAV.M8. CANDLER V. TILLETT 1107 to compel payment, though he was very active in recovering a debt due to himself personally from T. T. deposited his title-deeds with another person as a security for fresh advances, and the testator's debt was lost. Held, that C. was liable for the loss. A testator placed his securities in the custody of T., his confidential solicitor. By his will he appointed T. and C. his executors. T. made out a list of such securities, which he signed and retained in a box, but he gave the key to C. Afterwards T. sent the box to C., requesting him to take out a mortgage security and send it to him for the purposes of an intended transfer. C., having no reason to suspect T., complied, and the mortgage money was received by T. alone and misapplied by him. Held, that his co-executor (C.) was not liable, it appearing from the evidence that the solicitor had a second key of the box, and could, and probably did, open the box himself. The testator, a farmer, was possessed of considerable property, consisting chiefly of notes of hand, mortgages, and securities for money. Amongst them was a mortgage for 1600, executed to him by John Notfr, and an equitable mortgage by deposit, for 1800, evidenced by a memorandum, and made to the testator by Tillett, his confidential solicitor. All the testator's securities were kept in a box, which the testator himself allowed to remain in Tillett's possession. By his will the testator gave his residuary estate to be divided amongst his nephews and nieces, and he appointed Candler and Tillett his executors. The testator died on the 23d of October 1849, and about a week afterwards the executors met at Tillett's office and examined the box, when Tillett made out and signed a list or schedule of the securities, which he delivered to Candler, together^with the key of the box, but Tillett retained the box itself in his possession as before. On the 1st of January 1850 Tillett sent a gig with the box to Candler, who lived at a distance of about five [258] miles, and requested him to open it and take out the papers relating to Nott's mortgage security for 1600, and sent them to him by the messenger. Candler accordingly opened the box and delivered the papers. The Court came to the conclusion that, besides the key in Candler's possession, Tillett had another which fitted the lock. Nott's mortgage money, unknown to Candler, was paid to Tillett on the 1st of January 1850, who, unknown to his co-executor, applied it to his own use, and it was lost. It was held in another suit that the payment of the mortgage money to Tillett, as one of the executors, was a valid payment as regarded the mortgagor; and in a suit of Brewster v. Tillett a decree was made against the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v Shields
...SHIELDS Attorney-General v. RandellUNK 22 Vin. Abr. 535. Bank of IrelandIR See the case reported [1901] 1 I. R. 222. Candler v. TillettENR 22 Beav. 257. Chambers v. Minchin 7 Ves. 185. Churchill v. Hobson 1 Pee. Wms. 241. Clough v. Bond 3 M. & C. 490, 496. Gasquoine v. GasquoineELR [1894] 1......