Griffiths v Porter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1858 |
| Date | 28 January 1858 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 53 E.R. 627
ROLLS COURT
See In re Hill, 1881, 50 L. J. Ch. 553.
[236] griffiths v. porter. Jan. 28, 1858. [See In re Hill, 1881, 50 L. J. Ch. 553.] The Court will not visit a trustee with the consequences of a breach of trust committed with the sanction or by the desire of the eeatui qua trust or of one committed without such sanction or desire, if, when it comes to the knowledge of the eeatui que trust, he has acquiesced in and obtained the benefit of it for a long period. Two trustees, A. and B., joined in the receipt of trust money. A. allowed B. to retain the cheque for the money, which, against the remonstrances of A., he placed in the hands of a solicitor to invest on mortgage, and it was lost. Held, that both were liable. Two trustees, A. and B., had allowed trust money to be received by their solicitors. The eeatui que trust authorized its investment on a mortgage by B. alone. The money being in danger and the solicitors pressed, a mortgage was given, but as to which B. exercised no judgment, and it turned out insufficient. Held, that both trustees were liable for the loss. Tenant far life received 5 per cent, on a mortgage improperly taken by trustees, and for which, on a loss, they were made responsible. Held, that he was only entitled to four per cent, in taking the account of income, and that the remaining one per cent, must be taken as part of the subsequent income. The testator devised a real estate to his sons, Thomas Porter and Richard Porter, upon trust to sell and to invest the produce in " Government stock, or at interest upon real security," to be held upon trust for his son Henry Porter for life, with remainder equally amongst his children. The trustees were to be chargeable only for such moneys as they should respectively receive, notwithstanding their joining in any receipt for the sake of conformity, and were not to be answerable for any person " with whom or in whose hands any part of the said trust moneys should or might be deposited or lodged for safe custody or otherwise," " except the same should happen by or through his or their own wilful default." The testator died in 1835, and in 1853 the trustees sold and conveyed the estate, and they both signed a receipt for the purchase-money, the ultimate available surplus of which amounted to 1500. The purchase-money thus received in April 1853 was paid into a banker's, to the account of Messrs. Selby & Norton, the solicitors employed by the trus-[237]-tees in the sale, for the purpose of being invested on mortgage. Messrs. Selby & Norton, being pressed, ultimately obtained a mortgage for the amount from Mr. William Coleman Selby (the brother of Mr. Selby the solicitor). Messrs. Selby & Norton became bankrupts in November 1854, and the mortgage turned out to be a bad security. Henry Porter, the tenant for life, died in March 1856. He had three children who survived him, and this suit was instituted by two of them against their uncle, Richard Porter, and against the representatives of their uncle Thomas Porter (who was dead) to make them responsible for the 1500. This was resisted by the Defendant Richard Porter. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnard v Bagshaw the Lake Bathurst Australasian Gold Mining Company
...for the misapplication of it by that one; Clough v. Bonil (3 Myl. & Cr. 490); Trutch v. Lamprell (20 Beav. 116); Griffiths v. Porter (25 Beav. 236). The mere crossing of the cheques added no security for the prevention of the breach of trust, and in nowise lessened his liability in respect ......
-
DE VŒ, Petitioner; MARA, Respondent. and the Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act
...consider to have been unfounded. (a) Lyne Ap. 12. (b) 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 216. (c) 1 Ir. Eq. Rep. 338. (d) Hayes, 591. (e) 4 Br. P. C. 594. (f) 25 Beav. 236. (g) 5 Ir. Eq. Rep. 322; S. C., 3 Dr. & War. (a) Hayes, 596note; S. C., 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 457, note. (b) 2 Ves. 139. ...
-
M'DOWELL and Others v REEDE and Others
...M'DOWELL and Others and REEDE and Others. Griffiths v. PorterENR 25 Beav. 236. Abbott v. Stratten 3 J. & L. 612. Gaussen v. MoretonENR 10 B. & C. 731. Hale v. Lord BexleyENR 20 Beav. 132. 190 CHANCERY. REPORTS. 1862. £4412. 6s. 9d., was paid into the assets of the testator on the 25th Rolls......