Cutbush v Cutbush
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1739 |
| Date | 01 January 1739 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 910
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 8 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 175; 3 Jur. 142. See Owen v. Delamere, 1872, L. R. 15 Eq. 139; Fraser v. Murdoch, 1881, 6 App. Cas. 866.
[180] hopkinson v. eoe. Nov. 19, 20, 1838. [Distinguished, Jones v. Powell, 1843, 6 Beav. 492.] Executors held, under the circumstances, justified in appointing an agent to get in the testator's debts, and in allowing him a salary for his trouble. This case came before the Court upon exceptions to the Master's report. The testator, a tailor, accumulated a considerable fortune, exceeding 20,000, a large portion of which consisted of outstanding debts. By his will he appointed four executors, two of whom renounced ; the other two, Mr. Hopkinson and Mr. Stones, accepted the trusts : the former was a banker, the latter a linen-draper. They appointed an accountant to collect the book debts, which [181] were very numerous (nearly 400), and the Master had allowed the executors in their accounts a sum of 246 for the accountant's commission, being after the rate of 2i per cent. As to this allowance there were cross exceptions : the Plaintiffs objected that the Master ought not to have allowed any sum whatever for the accountant; on the other hand, Mr. Stones, by his exceptions, insisted that the Master ought to have allowed 5 per cent.; while Mr. Hopkinson, the co-executor, was satisfied with the allowance of 1\ per cent., as to which he supported the Master's report. Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Koe, for the Plaintiffs, argued, that executors were, under very special circumstances only, allowed to employ an agent to perform the duties which, by accepting the office of executors, they had undertaken. to perform. Weiss v. Dill (3 Myl. & K. 26). In that case, the circumstances of 1BBAV. 183. HOPKINSON V. ROE 909 which were very special, 2^ per cent, was allowed for the remuneration of an agent employed by the executors; but Sir John Leach doubted whether the Master ought to have made them any allowance. Here, they contended no special circumstances had been shewn which authorised the employment of an agent to get in the debts. They urged also, that Mr. Stokes, the surviving partner of the testator, would willingly have collected the debts without remuneration, for the sake of the connection ; and as to the allowance of 5 per cent., they objected that it was excessive and that Mr. Stories had [182] entered into an agreement with the accountant for an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crockett v Crockett
...: Buffar v. Bradford (2 Atk. 220). They cited also Jubber v. Jubber (9 Sim. 503); Woods v. Woods (1 Myl. & Or. 401); Gutbush v. Cutbush (1 Beav. 184); Vaughan v. Marquis of Head/ml (10 Sim. 639); Blackwell v. Bull (1 Keen, 176); Malim v. KeigJiley (2 Ves. jun. 333). [453] If the true constr......
-
Liverpool Borough Bank v Walker
...(7 B. & C. 444); Eawstone v. Parr (3 Buss. 424,. 539); Summer v. Powell (2 Her. 30); Ex parte Eicfmrdsm (3 Mad. 138); Gutimsh v. Cutbush (1 Beav. 184); Eastwood v. Bain (3 H. & N. 738); and relied in particular on Wilmer v. Gurrey (2 De G. & Sm. 347). Mr. Giffard and Mr. Little, for the Pla......
-
Hunt v Jessel
...172 of the 12 & 13 Viet. c. 106 (Bankrupt Act). The following cases were also cited: Rawson v. Samuel (Cr. & Ph. 161); Cutbush v. Cutbush (1 Beav. 184); Ex parte Garland (10 Ves. 110); Baillie v. Edward* (2 H. L. Cas. 74); Dodd v. Lydall (1 Hare, 333); Lord Cawdor v. Lewis (1 Y. & C. Exch. ......
-
Gallagher v Ferris
...& G. 744. Hooper v. KeayELR 1 Q. B. D. 178. Sterndale v. HankinsonENR 1 Sim. 400. Devaynes v. NobleENR 1 Mer. 572. Cutbush v. CutbushENR 1 Beav. 184, 188. Cutbush v. CutbushENR 1 Beav. 184. Will Direction to trustees to permit testator's wife to carry on his trade Divesting clause on second......