Elizabeth Weymouth Williams, - Appellant; John Gregory Stevens, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 1866 |
| Date | 09 November 1866 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 16 E.R. 305
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF THE ISLAND OF JERSEY.
Mews' Dig. tit. Colony, II. Particular Colonies, 13 Jersey and Guernsey, c. Laws; tit. Trust and Trustee, C. The Trustee, 11. Liabilities of Trustees for Breaches of Trust, b. vii., d. Profits accruing from Trust Property, 12. Agents employed by Trustees, c. Personal Liability of Agents, 1. In General. S.C. L.R. 1 P.C. 352; 36 L.J. P.C. 21; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 952; 15 W.R. 409.
ON APPEAL FROM THE ROYAL COURT OF THE ISLAND OF JERSEY. ELIZABETH WEYMOUTH WILLIAMS,-Appellant; JOHN GREGORY STEVENS, -Respondent * [Nov. 9, 1866]. It is no answer to the rule, that persons standing in the situation of Trustees or Agents must account to their Cestui que trusts, or Principals, for all benefit which they themselves obtain by virtue of that character, that in the course of acquiring the benefit which has been derived by the Trustee or Agent, he incurred a possibility of loss; it is sufficient, if the transaction has resulted in gain obtained by virtue of the Trusteeship or agency, to give the benefit to the Cestui que trust [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 246]. The law of Jersey, which in case of Bankruptcy entitles the Creditors in succes sion, ranking from the latest Creditor, to take the whole of the Bankrupt's estate, with its liabilities, and become in fact the Assignee; when acted on, whether it be a profitable proceeding, or a damnosa hereditas, does not alter the right of the Cestui que trust, or, because of its risk, give a Trustee or Agent acting under it a legal title to property so acquired [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 246, 247]. This was an appeal from a judgment of a full number of the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey, [236] affirming a judgment of the inferior number, by which judg- * Present: Lord Westbury, Sir James William Colvile, and Sir Edward Vaughan Williams. 305 IV MOORE N.S., 237 WILLIAMS V. STEVENS [1866] ment a claim for 578 sterling, made by the Appellant against the Respondent, her Procureur generate et special, as being profit made by him from his position as her Procureur, and appropriated to his private use, was dismissed. The circumstances of the case were these:- By a contract, dated the 21st of September, 1844, Edward Bond, the late husband of the Appellant, purchased a house and premises in the Island of Jersey, from one Thomas Gray. Bond died, having bequeathed the house to the Appellant, his widow, whereupon she became entitled to the benefit of the contract. A short time after the death of her husband, the Appellant, by power of Attorney, . appointed the Respondent, Stevens, by a general and special procuration, to act for her and manage her property and affairs. By the law of Jersey the effect of a Procuration ginerale et special is threefold. First, it deprives the person who has granted the procuration of the power of entering into any contract or transaction with respect to his or her property, real or personal, without the consent of the Procureivr. Secondly, it gives the Procureur an unlimited control over the property, real or personal, of such person. And thirdly, it cannot, like an ordinary procuration, be recalled at will, but can only be revoked by an Acte of the Court. [237] On the 2nd of July, 1854, Gray was declared a Bankrupt, and made a cession of his real and personal property, which was placed " en decret." The Respondent, as Procureur of the Appellant, inserted in the decret in her name, as interested in the real estate of Bond, the contract between Bond and Gray of the 21st of September, 1844. A decret is the process adopted in Jersey for disposing of the estate of a Bankrupt among his Creditors when he is possessed of real property. When a decret is ordered, all persons who have claims registered, or unregistered, against the Bankrupt, or who have had transactions with him as to real property during the fifteen years which have immediately preceded his Bankruptcy, are required to deliver within a certain time to the Greffier of the Court, the statement of their claims against the Bankrupt, and the deeds or contracts relative to real property, which they have passed with him, for the purpose of being inserted in the decret. On the 16th of September, 1859, the Respondent, on behalf of his constituent, in right of the contract with Bond of the 21st of September, 1844, made himself tenant of the property of Gray in the decret, in the name of the Appellant. When the Respondent so declared himself tenant, another Creditor in the decret, John Godfray, whose contract stood inserted therein next in order to the Appellant's, applied before the Greffier for the Appellant to give security for the payment of the arrears of rentes due on Gray's property, the expenses of the decret, and the other consequences incidental to the teneure, on the plea that the Appellant was a person of insufficient means. At the same time Godfray [238] offered, if the Appellant's Proc,ureur would consent to give up the teneure, to become tenant in his stead, and to acknowledge as valid the contract of the 21st of September, 1844. On the 24th of September, 1859, the Respondent having been summoned before the Royal Court for the confirmation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial