Miles v Fox
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1860 |
| Date | 13 February 1860 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 54 E.R. 271
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 423; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 208; 1 L. T. 474. See Sander v. Heathfield, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 25. Cf. In re Ridley [1904], 2 Ch. 774.
J8BEAV.16. FOX V. GARRETT 271 The Chief Clerk's certificate must be varied accordingly. note.-Affirmed by the full Court of Appeal, 26th January 1860. [1 De G. F. & J. 381.] Jf.t-'-f, / f*: [16] Fox v. garrett. miles v. Fox. Jan. 28, Feb. 13, 1860. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ch. 423; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 208; 1 L. T. 474. See Sounder v. Heathfiell, 1874, L. R. 19 Eq. 25. Cf. In re Ridley [1904], 2 Ch. 774.] The same individual was the administrator both of A. and B., whose estates were being administered by the Court. A.'s estate was found indebted to B.'s. Held, that the administrator was entitled, and was bound, at the instance of the parties interested in B.'s estate, to retain the debt out of A.'s assets in preference to A.'s other creditors. Richard Fox died in 1856, and his will was proved by Clement Fox, his executor. Clement Fox died in 1858, and Samuel Fox became both the administrator of Richard Fox and of Clement Fox. Under decrees in these two causes the estates of Richard and Clement were both being administered by the Court. On taking the accounts the Chief Clerk certified that a sum of 231 was due from the estate of Clement to the estate of Richard, and that Samuel Fox had in his hands assets of Clement's amounting to 129. There were other debts of Clement's amounting to 84, 16s., and a small outstanding estate. Samuel Fox, as administrator de bonis nim of Richard Fox, submitted to the Court, whether he had a right and was bound to retain so much of the personal estate and outstanding estate of Clement Fox as might be sufficient to discharge the amount due from the estate of Clement Fox to the estate of Richard Fox. The person interested in Richard's estate insisted that he was bound to retain the whole 129 in discharge of the debt of 231 in preference to all the other creditors of Clement Fox. It was argued, on the one hand, that the right of retainer was a legal right which the administrator was bound to exercise for the benefit of the parties beneficially interested in the estate to which that legal right was attached. On the other hand, it was contended that if such a right existed in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the administrator was not imperatively bound [17] to exercise it to the detriment of the other creditors of Clement Fox...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Owen, Deceased. Poe v Shortt
...POE and SHORTT. Boyd v. GrooksENR 34 Beav. 7. Richmond v. White 12 Ch. Div. 361. Thomson v GrantENR 1 Russ. 540. Fox v. GarrettENR 28 Beav. 16. Crowder v. Stewart 16 Ch. Div. 368. Ferguson v. GibsonELR L. R. 14 Eq. 379. Bathurst v. De la ZouchENRENR 2 Dick. 460; S. C., sub nom. Bathurst v. ......