Liddell v Norton

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 December 1855
Date05 December 1855
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 829

ROLLS COURT

Liddell
and
Norton. 1

S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 90; 2 Jur. N. S. 105; 4 W. R. 145. As to trust estates passing under the devise, see In re Bellis's Trusts, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 510. As to misapplication of purchase-money, see In re Bellamy and Metropolitan Board of Works, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 390.

[183] hoped. liddell (No. 1). liddell v. norton.(!) Nov. 16, 17, 21, Dec. 5, 1855. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 90; 2 Jur. N. S. 105; 4 W. R. 145. As to trust estates passing under the devise, see In re Bellis's 2'rusts, 1877, 5 Ch. D. 510. As to misapplication of purchase-money, see In re Bellamy and Metropolitan Board of Works, 1883, 24 Ch. D. 390.] A trustee devised "all his real estates, whatsoever and wheresoever," charged with a legacy. Held, that the trust estates did not pass. A will was inaccurately recited in a conveyance. Held, nevertheless, that the purchaser had notice of the real contents of the will. When a trustee has a power of sale over real estate, with power to give receipts, and it is declared that the purchaser shall not be liable for the misapplication of the purchase-money, the payment to the authorized agent of the trustee, even though he be tenant for life, is not a breach of trust or invalid. Where A. (a stranger to the trust), assuming to exercise a trust for sale, conveys the estate to a purchaser, if this Court afterwards compels the purchaser to restore the land to the cesiui que trust, the purchaser will be entitled to all the assistance which this Court or the cestui qne trust could give him, to recover from the self-constituted trustee the purchase-money still in his hands, or for which he might remain liable. In 1799 a testator devised an estate in trust for his daughter and her husband successively for life, with remainder to their children, and he gave to the trustee a (1) dates. 1837. Greene v. 1845. Catherine Norton died. 1846. Eackham v, Siddall. 1848. Decrees. 1850. Appeal. 1851. Ejectment. 1851. Hope v. Liddell. 1799. Dr. Spencer died. 1806. William Thompson died. 1807. Conveyance by Grace, 1821. Jonas died. 1826. \Deeds executed by 1830.J children. 1837. Benjamin Norton died. 830 HOPE V. LIDDELL 21 BBAV. 1M. power of sale. The trustee died in 1806, and the trust descended on hia heir A. Immediately afterwards, B., acting without authority as trustee, sold the estate to a purchaser with notice, and allowed the purchase-money to be received by the daughter's husband. The husband died in 1837, and in a suit instituted by one of the children, his estate was declared liable for the purchase-money in his hands. The daughter died in 1845, and, in a suit by her representatives, the estate of B. was held liable for the trust money to the extent of the daughter's interest only, and relief was refused to the children, who were Defendants. Between 1826 and 1830 the children had executed deeds reciting the sale, &c. In 1851 some of them instituted a suit to recover the estate itself from the purchaser. Held, that they were entitled to no relief; and, in a cross-suit by the purchaser, the children were decreed to make good his title. Dr. William Spencer, the owner in fee of some lauds at Hull and elsewhere, made his will in March 1798, by which he devised them to William Thompson, his heirs and assigns, upon trust, out of the rents, to pay an annuity of 150 to his wife and to pay the surplus rents to his daughter Catherine, the wife of [184] Benjamin Norton, for life, with remainder to Benjamin Norton for life, with remainder to the children of Catherine Norton, as tenants in common in tail, with an ultimate remainder to Matthew Spencer in fee. The will contained a proviso, that in case Benjamin Norton and Catherine Norton, or the survivor, should be desirous that the whole or any part of the estatea should be sold, then " that it should be lawful for William Thompson, his heirs and assigns, to aell and dispose of the same, by and with the consent and approbation of Benjamin Norton and Catherine Norton, or the survivor of them, and after payment of the money to arise by the sale," to sign and give receipts for the purchase-money which were to be sufficient discharges for the purchasers who were not afterwards to be answerable " for any loss, misapplication or non-application of the purchase-money or any part thereof," and should hold the estates discharged of the uses, &c., thereby declared. The testator then directed the purchase-moneys to be laid out, either in the purchase of other hereditaments or upon good and sufficient security at interest, in the name of his trustee; and the hereditaments were to be conveyed to William Thompson and his heirs, to the uses thereinbefore declared and then subsisting. And the testator directed that the principal money, after the decease of Benjamin and Catherine Norton, should be equally divided amongst all such child or children as Catherine Norton might leave at her decease, to be vested and paid at twenty-one, and in default to Matthew Spencer, The testator died in 1799. William Thompson accepted the trusts of the will and entered into possession of the lands. He died in 1806, having made his will, dated the 17th December 1805, which was as follows: [185] "I give and devise all my real estates, whatsoever and wheresoever, unto and to the use of my sister Grace Thompson, her heirs and assigns for ever, charged with 50 to my friend Watson." William Thompson left Jonas Thompson, his brother and heir at law, and Grace Thompson, his sister and devisee, surviving him. In June 1806 Benjamin Norton entered into a written contract for the sale of aoout seventy-four acres of the devised property (which was the estate in question in this cause), for 6300 to George Liddell. Liddell agreed to pay 1000 guineas of the purchase-money on demand and secure the remainder by the joint bond of himaelf and two other persons, to be paid at the expiration of three years, unless the then present war should not then be ended ; and if the war should then exist, then one-half only was to be paid at the expiration of three years and the other half so soon as a definitive treaty of peace should be signed, with interest until paid. A conveyance of the lands was executed, dated the 21st of October 1807, which was made between Grace Thompson of the first part, Benjamin Norton and wife of the second part, Mr. Liddell of the third part, and a trustee of the fourth part. It recited the will of Spencer, the will of Thompson (but omitting the important words " charged with 50 to my friend Watson "), by virtue of which Spencer's property had become vested in Grace Thompson upon the trusts of Spencer's will; that Grace Thompson, in pursuance of the power of sale in Spencer's will, and with the consent ZLBEAV. 18. HOPE V. LIDDELL 831 of Norton and wife, had, "some time ago," contracted with Liddell for the sale of the property for 6300. It then purported to convey the property in consideration of that sum expressed to be paid to Grace Thompson. A re-[186]-ceipt for the payment of the purchase-money, on the same day, was indorsed and signed by Grace Thompson. It must be here observed that if, as was held, the trust estate did not pass by the will of William Thompson, this conveyance did not pass the estate to Liddell, for Jonas Thompson, the heir at law of William Thompson, was still living and lived until 1821. The whole of the purchase-money of 6300 was received by Benjamin Norton at different times and was by him misapplied, and he gave Grace Thompson a bond of indemnity against the consequences of her having allowed him to receive the money. Benjamin Norton died in 1837, and Catherine his wife died in 1845. Their children were Mr. William Spencer Norton, Edward Norton, Georgiaua Seton, Mary Hope (the Plaintiff) and Catherine Greene (deceased). It is now necessary to advert to the different suits which had been instituted in this Court relative to these matters. On the death of Benjamin Norton, a suit of Greene v. Norton was, in 1837, instituted by Greene, the husband and representative of Catherine, one of the children, who had died in 1825, to administer Norton's estate and to make it liable for the trust moneys received by him. By the decree (1848), the parties beneficially interested under Spencer's will were declared creditors of Benjamin Norton for 6800, produced by the sale of the trust estates and received by him, without prejudice, however, to their right to resort to the estates of the Thompsons or to the estates sold. [187] In July 1846 a suit of Rackham v. Siddall was instituted by the administrators of Catherine Norton against Siddall (the executrix of Grace Thompson) and others, and seeking to charge the estate of Grace Thompson with the purchase-money for the trust estates which she had allowed Mr. Norton to receive. In her answer, filed in January 1847, Charlotte Siddall denied that Mr. Thompson left Grace Thompson hia heir at law. At the hearing of Rackham v. Siddall, the children of Benjamin Norton and wife supported the claim of the Plaintiff, and the Vice-Chancellor of England, on the 13th of July 1848, held (16 Sim. 297), that though the trust estates had not passed to Grace Thompson by her brother's will, yet as she had assumed the character of a trustee, she incurred the responsibilities of one, and he declared (Ib. 306), that Grace Thompson, having permitted Benjamin Norton to receive the 6300, that sum ought to be made good out of her assets. Upon appeal, in 1850, the decree was varied by Lord Cottenham, who was of opinion that the relief ought to be limited to the interest of the deceased tenant for life, and ought not to extend to the capital sum of 6300. (See 1 Mac. & G. 620, and 2 H. & Tw. 54.) The Lord Chancellor, on that occasion, expressed an extra judicial opinion, that the children, except one, by their mode of dealing, had disentitled themselves to relief against the representatives of Grace Thompson. (Ibid.) It will be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Robertson v Armstrong
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • January 26, 1860
    ...Blair v. Bromley (5 Hare, 542); Corner v. Bromley (5 De G. & Sm. 532); Bourdillmi v. Roche (27 Law J. (Ch.) 681); and see Hope v. Liddell (21 Beav. 183); Sugden's Vendors (p. 549 (13th ed.)); Dart's Vendors (pp. 428, 429 (3d ed.)), were cited. Jan. 24. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romi......
  • Viney & Chaplin
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • January 1, 1858
    ...v. [475] Haggie (1 Jac. & W. 234), Sugd Vend, and Purch. (13th edit, page 549), 'Wilkinson v. Oandlish (5 Exch. 91), Hope v. Lidclell (21 Beav. 183), Lord St. Leonards' Handy Book (page 89). Sir E. Bethell, Mr. J. Baily, and Mr. G. L. Eussell, for the Defendant. There is no equity to sustai......
  • Austin v Martin
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • May 22, 1861
    ...a testator has only entrusted to particular persons, selected and nominated by him for that special purpose. He cited Hope v. Liddell (21 Beav. 183); Spackmm v. Timbrell (8 Sim. 253); Riduxrdsffn. v. Em-ton (7 Beav. 112); Lewin on Trusts (p. 240-285 (3d edit.)). May 22. the master of the ro......
  • Aveline v Melhuish
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • July 6, 1864
    ...JONES V. JONES aHO.J.*B.M2. Jiackham v. Siddall (16 Sim. 297 ; 1 M. & G. 607); Greenwood v. Wake/ord (1 Beav. 576), and Hope v. Liddel (21 Beav. 183), were referred to. [292] Mr. Southgate, in reply. The Plaintiff could not know that the release would affect this claim, and there is no alle......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT