Christophers v White
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1847 |
| Date | 27 July 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 683
ROLLS COURT
[523] christophers v. white, July 27, 1847. Trustees can only be allowed costs out of pocket, for professional business transacted by a firm, one of whom is a trustee, though the business be done by one of the partners who is not a trustee. The testatrix devised real estates to Clement and White, upon trust, after the death of a tenant for life, to sell and pay one-third of the produce unto the Plaintiffs wife. Clement was a solicitor carrying on business in partnership with Newman, and the firm of Clement & Newman, or, as it was said, Newman, on behalf of the firm, managed the affairs of the trust, and after the death of the tenant for life sold the estates. Clement died in 1844, and this bill was filed against White for payment of the one-third share. The accounts, as rendered, were admitted, except as to the professional charges of Messrs. Clement & Newman ; and these were now made the subject of discussion. [524] Mr. Tinney and Mr. Bates, for the Plaintiff. It is clearly settled, that a trustee cannot make any charge for his professional exertions in the matter of the trust. The same rule applies where trust business is conducted by two solicitors, one of whom happens to be a trustee. Collins v. Carey (2 Beavan, 128; and see the other authorities, 9 Beavan, 388, note). The trustee is only entitled to costs out of pocket. Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Bagshawe, for White. The rule ought not to be extended to this case. On the death of the tenant for life, it became necessary to sell the property. Clement, by the state of his health, was incapable of transacting the business which was done by Newman alone, whom it would be unjust to deprive of .all remuneration. At all events the Court ought to grant a reference to the Master, to enquire under what circumstances the expences were incurred. 684 NEWTON V. KICKETTS 10BBAV.B26. Mr. Mitchell, for another Defendant. the master of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v Sherry
...Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., and HOLMES, L.J. MARTIN and SHERRY Barnard v. GostlingENR 2 East, 569. Christophers v. WhiteENR 10 Beav. 523. Clack v. Carlon 7 Jur. (N. S.) 441. Edmonson v. DavisENR 4 Esp. 14. Esposito v. BowdenENR 7 E. & B. 784. Kent v. WardUNK 70 L. T. (N. S.) 612. Matchett v.......
-
Broughton v White
...of a firm ; but still the principle was the same, viz., that the estate should be put to no extra expense. In Christophers v. White (10 Beav. 523) the Court would not allow the estate to be charged with the costs of business done by the partner of the trustee. There, however, the case was p......
-
Broughton v Broughton
...and commented on Ayliffe v. Murray (2 Atk. 58), Bainbiigge v. Blair (8 Beav. 588), Todd v. Wilson (9 Beav. 486), Christophers v. White (10 Beav. 523), York v. Brown (1 Coll. 260). Mr. Bacon and Mr. Chapman Barber supported the decision of the Vice-Chancellor. They commented on the cases ref......
-
Matthison v Clarke
...whatever: Leith v. Irvine (1 Myl. & K. 277); Benson v. Heathorn (1 Y. & Coll. 327); Collins v. Carey (2 Beav. 128); Christophers v. White (10 Beav. 523). These last cases shew, if that is disputed, that if the business is done by a firm it is the same as if actually done by the member who i......