Dix v Burford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1854 |
| Date | 12 July 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 408
ROLLS COURT.
See In re Smith, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 305.
[409] dix v. burford. July 12, 1854. - t '' ;- [See In re Smith, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 305.] Upon assenting to a specific bequest given to them in trust, executors forthwith become trustees. A testator bequeathed a mortgage, secured by a conditional surrender, and which had become absolute, to his two executors, upon trust to continue and hold it on certain trusts. The executors assented to the legacy, but did not procure themselves to be admitted, and by reason thereof, one of them was enabled to receive the money WBBAV.UO. DIX V. BUEFORD 409 and release the estate. The money being misapplied : Held, that the co-executor had become a trustee and was liable for his default. The ordinary trustee indemnity clause affords no security to a trustee who neglects to take the necessary steps to secure the trust fund. The testator was entitled to a sum of 400, secured by a conditional surrender of some copyholds, dated in March 1814. This had become absolute in September following, but the testator had never been admitted. By his will, made in 1823, the testator, after reciting that Clarke was indebted to him in 400, on mortgage of an estate at Bladon, gave and bequeathed the same mortgage debt or sum of 400, unto his executors, upon trust to continue the same at interest, upon the said security, until the death of the Plaintiff, John Dix, and to pay the interest unto the Plaintiff for life, and from and after the decease of Plaintiff, the testator directed his executors to call in the mortgage debt of 400, and pay it to some of the Defendants. And the testator thereby directed that John Burford and William Yells should not be chargeable, but only for their respective receipts, payments, acts, and wilful defaults, and not otherwise, nor with any sum or sums of money other than such as should come to their or his own hands respectively, by virtue of his will, nor with any loss or damage which might happen to the said sum of 400 in consequence of its remaining on security as therein directed, unless the same should happen by or through his or their respective wilful default. The testator appointed John Burford and William Yells executors. [410] The testator died shortly after, and his two executors proved his will. Burford principally acted, but in 1825 both executors concurred in and signed a residuary account, which was passed at the Legacy Duty Office by Yells...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leahy v De Moleyns
...v. TeesdaleENR 1 De G. J. & S. 52. Dilkes v. BroadmeadENR 2 De G. F. & J. 566. Dilkes v. BroadmeadENR 2 Giff. 113. Dix v. BurfordENR 19 Beav. 409. Forsyth v. BristoweENR 8 Ex. 716. Gillespie v. AlexanderENR 3 Russ. 130. Gregory v. Gregory 1 Coop. 201. Greig v. SomervilleENR 1 Russ. & My. 33......
-
O'Reilly v Walsh
...Bing. 486. Archbold v. ScullyENR 9 H. L. C. 360. Bullock v. DownesENR 9 H. L. C. 24. Byrchall v. BradfordUNK 6 Mad. 235. Dix v. BurfordENR 19 Beav. 409. Will — Construction — Vested legacy — Residuary gift — Statute of Limitations — 3 & 4 Wm. 4, ss. 6, 40 — Administrator. VOL. V......
-
Smith v Smith
...referred to Garrett v. Lcmcefield (2 Jur. (N. S.) 177); Dean v. Allen (20' Beav. 1); Bunting v. Marriott (9 W. E. 264); Dm v. Burford (19 Beav. 409). Mr. Glasse and Mr. Dewsnap, for the trustees. Mr. J. J. Jervis and Mr, Surrage, for other parties. the vice-chancellok [Sir E. T. Kindersley]......
-
Wright v Stanfield
...Jacob, 198; Lewin on Trustees, 317 (3d eel.); Fenwick v. Greenwell, 10 Beav. 415 ; Droder v. Brereton, 15 Beav. 221 ; Dix v. Burford, 19 Beav. 409 ; 22 & 23 Viet. c. 35, s. 31. 4 WRIGHT V. STANFLELD 27 BEAV. 9. the residue of a term of ninety-one years, assigned it to Messrs. Whitehead by w......