Lowson against Copeland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 1787 |
| Date | 17 March 1787 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 29 E.R. 89
LINCOLN'S INN HALL
lowson against copeland. Lincoln's Inn Hall, March 17, [1787]. Executor having 3 guineas per annum for collecting rents, a trustee as to the residue of personal estate. And not having brought an action to recover a bond debt, was charged therewith.(1) Having put the next of kin to prove their relationship, ordered to pay the costs of [taking the accounts. (See R. L.)]. Ann Barber made her will in 1765, and thereby (after a devise of her real estate to the defendant, his heirs, and assigns, upon certain trusts, and giving some legacies. 90 LOWSON V. COPELAND 2 BED. 0. C. 157. Keg. Lib.) gave the defendant an annuity of three pounds (" three guineas and three shillings." Eeg. Lib.) per- annum for his trouble in receiving several rents of her real estate, and appointed him executor, making no disposition of the residue of her estate. In 1770, the plaintiffs filed a bill as next of kin of the testatrix, insisting that the gift of the annuity had turned the defendant into a trustee for them as to the undisposed surplus, and praying an account of all sums he had received, or might have received. The defendant, by his answer, contested the plaintiffs being next of kin, and put them to the proof of their relationship; and, in case they were such, controverted his being turned into a trustee for them. The cause was heard before his late Honor in 1773, who decreed that the defendant was a trustee for the next of kin, and referred it to the Master to enquire whether the plaintiffs were the next of kin, and to take an account. In 1783 the Master made his report that the plaintiffs were the next of kin; and, among other things, stated a bond, bearing date the 1st of May 1761, by one Lumley, to the testatrix, for one hundred pounds, with which the Master charged the defendant. To this report the defendant excepted, for that the Master had charged him with the £100 as received from Lumley, whereas he had not received it, although he had made various applications, and used due diligence to obtain payment of it. This exception coming on before the Lords Commissioners, [157] they referred it to the Master to enquire whether the executor had taken proper steps for the recovery of the money, and whether the debt was a good debt, and ordered the defendant to call in the bond. The Master reported, that the defendant had applied by an attorney to the obligor in the bond, to pay the debt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guinness Mahon Cayman Trust Ltd v Washington Intl Bank & Trust Ltd
...139; [1980] 2 All E.R. 92. (3) Edevain v. CohenELR(1889), 41 Ch.D. 563; on appeal, (1889), 43 Ch.D. 187. (4) Lowson v. CopelandENR(1787), 2 Bro. C.C. 156; 29 E.R. 89. (5) Mitchell v. Harris Engr. Co. Ltd., [1967] 2 Q.B. 703; [1967] 2 All E.R. 682. (6) Pottinger v. Ebanks, Grand Court, 1982,......
-
Re Knight's Trusts
...living, and on proper evidence that they had duly appointed a person to receive it, to pay over the money 1 In Lou'son v. Copelarul (2 Bro. C. C. 156) the Court held that an executor, having put the next of kin to prove their relationship, must pay the costs of so doing. In several other ca......
-
Costelloes v Cantwell and Others
...principle and without authority, and I must, therefore, refuse the motion with costs. No rule. (a) 2 Mol. 346. (b) 5 Ves. 844. (c) 2 Bro. C. C. 156. (d) 8 Ves. ...
-
Ball v Ball and Curtis
...Hayes, 484. Denne v. KnottENR 7 M. & W. 143. Browne v. FleetwoodENR 5 M. & W. 19. Caffrey v. Darby 6 Ves. 488. Lawson v. CopelandENR 2 Bro. C. C. 156. Cocker v. Quayle 1 R. & My. 535. Whistler v. Newman 4 Ves. 129. Turner v. Moffett Al. & N. 414. 370 CASES IN EQUITY. 1847. - ehatiefrYâ€Â......