Egbert v Butter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 March 1856 |
| Date | 11 March 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 976
ROLLS COURT
See Fox v. Buckley, 1876, 3, Ch. D. 511; In re Milnes, 1885, 53 L. T. 535.
[560] egbert v. butter. March 11, 1856. [See Fox v. Buckley, 1876, 3 Ch. D. 511; In re Milnes, 1885, 53 L. T. 535.] A testator gave annuities to the Plaintiffs, and appointed three executors, one of whom (A. B.) was the residuary legatee. No fund was set apart to answer the annuities, but A. B. was permitted by his co-executors to receive the assets, which he wasted, though he paid the annuities for eighteen years, at the end of which he became insolvent. Held, that the co-executors were liable to the Plaintiffs for A. B.'s receipts. A testator devised a real estate to A. B. for life, in terms which gave him the legal estate, and he bequeathed to him his personal estate, subject to some annuities bequeathed to the Plaintiffs, and appointed him an executor. A. B. wasted the assets. Held, that his life-estate in the realty was not liable to make good the annuities. The testator died in 1836. By his will he devised his Burleigh estate to Butter, Eichard Hart and Oxenham, their heirs and assigns, " upon trust, to permit and suffer his nephew, Warwick Hunt, to receive and take the rents, issues and profits thereof for and during the term of his natural life." And after the determination of HBR4V.M1. EGBERT V. BUTTER 977 that estate in his lifetime, " then to the use and behoof" of the same trustees and their heirs during his life, in trust, to support contingent uses, " and for that purpose to make entries," &c. Yet nevertheless to permit him to receive the rents during his life, and " from and immediately after the decease of Warwick Hunt, to the use and behoof of George Warwick Augustus Hunt" (his eldest son) in tail, with divers remainders over. He made other devises and dispositions, and gave some annuities to the Plaintiffs (his servants), and the residue of his real and personal estate [661] to Warwick Hunt absolutely, subject, as to his personal estate, to the payment of the debts and annuities. He appointed Butter, Oxenham and Warwick Hunt executors. The will contained an indemnity clause declaring the trustees should not be answerable for more of the trust estate " than should actually come to his or their respective hands." The will was proved by the three executors. Warwick Hunt was allowed by his co-executors to possess himself of the whole personal estate without making any provision for the Plaintiffs'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swinfen v Swinfen
...Upon the question of acquiescence, I go this length: that if a client be present in Court, and stand by and see his 474 SWINFEN V. SWINFEN 21 BEAV. 560. solicitor enter into terms of au agreement, and makes no objection whatever to it, he is not at liberty afterwards to repudiate it. In Tho......
-
Cowell v Gatcombe
...for the amount of the three mortgages. They cited Styles v. G-uy (1 Mac. & Gor. 422); IHx. v. Eurford (19 Beav. 409); Egbert v. ButUr (21 Beav. 560); Thompson, v. Finch (22 Beav. 326). Mr. Follett and Mr. Smale, for the representatives of Richard Gatcombe, argued that under the circumstance......
-
Lord Kilworth v The Earl of Mountcashell
...should not have declared that Lord Kilworth's claim was an actual charge on Lord Mountcashell's life estate. (a) 9 H. of L. Cas. 619. (b) 21 Beav. 560. (c) 25 Beav. (d) 8 Sim. 180. (e) 9 Jur., N. S., 1258. * See12 Ir. Chan. Rep. 58. (a) 3 Ves. 260. (b) 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 307. (a) 3 Mer. 86. (b)......