Day v Croft
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1841 |
| Date | 04 November 1841 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1271
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 287; 4 Jur. 429.
2BEAV.S. DAY V. CHOFT 1271 [488] day . croft. April 1, May 12, 14, 1840. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 287; 4 Jur. 429.] The allowance to a receiver appointed by the Court depends on the degree of difficulty or facility experienced in the collection. There is no general rule as to the amount. The report of the Master allowing to the receiver a gross salary of 5 per cent, on considerable receipts, composed of large sums, due for mortgages, annuities, rents, &c., referred baek for review. The principal object of this petition was to have it referred back to the Master, to review his report as to the allowance made by him to the receiver in the cause, who had been appointed to get in the personal estate of the testator Charles Day; and it prayed in the alternative that, if necessary, the Petitioners might be at liberty to take exceptions to the Master's report. In February 1839, Mr. Scott, a London banker, was appointed receiver of the testator's estate; and he was directed to pass his accounts half-yearly, on or before the loth of November and the 15th of May in every year, or at such other time as the Master might from time to time direct or appoint. [489] By the first half-year's account, which was brought into the Master's office in November 1839, it appears that he had received from the 1st of March 1839 to the 15th of November 1839, the sum of £20,281 consisting, as to one-half part, of principal money paid in discharge of mortgage debts and for the redemption of annuities: of about £7000 for interest on mortgages and annuities, and of about £3000 received for the rent of leasehold estates. The Master allowed the receiver, on passing his accounts, the sum of £1014, Os. 3d., for his trouble, being at the rate of £5 per cent, on £20,281, 19s. 9d. the full amount of all his receipts; he directed the balance to be paid into Court before the 29th of February 1840, and which was done by the receiver on the 2'2d of February. It appeared that there was still considerable outstanding estate, of which a sum exceeding £100,000 was due on mortgages, some being of a very large amount. Another subject of complaint contained in the petition was, that the receiver had had in his hands from the month of March 1839 large balances varying from £3000 to £15,000, and particularly a balance of £13,692 from November 1839, when he brought his account into the Master's office, to the 22d of February 1840, when it was paid into Court: but the petition prayed nothing in respect to this point, and no evidence was given of any profit having been made by the receiver, from retaining such balances. Mr. Girdlestone and Mr. Hallett, in support of the petition, contended, that the Master had allowed an extravagant remuneration to the receiver for his receipt of gross sums, which had been paid over without any [490] trouble, and that not only as to the past but as to the future receipts, some means ought to be adopted for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnellan v O'Neill
...Ap. 362. Bonner v. Bonner 13 Ves. 383. Crowder v. Clowes 2 Ves. Jun. 449. Johnstone v. The Earl of HarrowbyENR John. 427. Day v. CroftENR 4 Beav. 561. Addlington v. CannENR 3 Atk. 144. Perrse v. DalyUNK 9 Ir. Eq. Rep. 508. Fitzmaurice v. SadlierUNK 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 544. Cooke v. Franklin 16 ......
-
Johnstone v The Earl of Harrowby
...gift the condition of payment out of the- fund designated by the first codicil. In Crowder v. Clowes (2 Ves. jun. 449), and Day v. Graft (4 Beav. 561), the words "in addition to" were no doubt used, but the judgments in those cases afford no ground for inferring that if the words " in addit......
-
Cooney v Nicholls
...App. Cas. 404. In Smyth v. Smyth 8 Ch. Div. 561. Attree v. AttreeELRL. R. 11 Eq. 280. Mannox v. GreenerELRL. R. 14 Eq. 456. Day v. CroftENR4 Beav. 561. In re More's Trust.ENR10 Hare 171. Windus v. Windus 6 D. M. & G. 562. Smyth v. Smyth 8 Ch. Div. 561. In Kellett v. KellettENR 3 Dow P. C. 2......
-
Young v Yonge
...2 Beav. 215; Overt-nil v. Chirney, 1 Sim. 128; Burrows v. Cattrell, 3 Sim. 375; C'hatteris v. Young, 6 Mad. 30; 2 Buss. 183; Day v. Croft, 4 Beav. 561; and Cooknon v. Hancock, 1 Keen, 817, and 2 Myl. & Or. 606. JBEAV.M4. CLARKE V. YONGE 681 of the corn tithes, but ignorant of his rights. He......