Noble v Meymott
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1851 |
| Date | 09 July 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 367
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 20 J. J. Ch. 612.
[471] noble v. MEYMorr.(2) July 1, 2, 7, 9, 1851. [S. C. 20 L. J. Ch. 612.] In 1830 A. and B. were appointed trustees of a part of a sum vested in other trustees. The deed contained a power for the settlors to appoint new trustees, in case any trustee should wish to be discharged from, or should decline to act in, the trusts. B. did not execute. In 1848 B., alleging he had never acted, disclaimed, and A. retired, and thereupon two new trustees were appointed, and the fund assigned to them by A. only. Held, that, whether B. had acted or not, the new trustees had been duly appointed, and that the cestuis que trust were not necessary parties to a suit by such new trustees against the persons, who held the fund, to compel payment to the new trustees. Considering the importance of securing intelligent, competent, and responsible persons to act as trustees, it is not the practice of the Court to visit trustees with costs, except where they act from interested motives, or intentionally and wantonly conduct themselves in a vexatious and oppressive manner. This was a bill filed by two persons, alleging themselves to be the trustees of a settlement made on the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Danford, requiring the Defendant to pay them the one-third of 3000, and also the costs of the suit. (1) See Bailey v. Lloyd, 5 Euss. 330, Ingleby v. Swift, 10 Bing. 84, Alexander v. Crosbie, LI. & Goo. temp. Sugden, 145. (2) dates. 1805. Mr. Noble's settlement. 1827. Appointment of 3000. 1830. Mr. Danford's settlement. 1844. Mrs. Noble died. 1848. Lewis disclaimed. - New trustees appointed. 1849. Bill filed. 368 NOBLE V. MEYMOTT 14 BBAV. to. On the 26th of August 1805 two settlements were executed on the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Noble, whereby certain property was conveyed to trustees, Oughton and Wilson, in trust for Mrs. Noble for life, with remainder to her children; and the settlement contained a power of appointment by which Mr. Noble and wife might appoint 3000 for the benefit of their children. Meymott was appointed a trustee vice Wilson ; and on the 28th of August 1827 this power was executed, [472] whereby the husband and wife appointed so much of the trust funds as would produce .3000, on the death of the survivor of Mr. and Mrs. Noble to Oughton and Meymott, in trust for Mary Ann Noble, Frances Maria Noble, and Emma Noble, their three daughters. On the 2d of August 1830 Frances Maria Noble married Mr. Danford, and upon this occasion, Mrs. Danford's share of the 3000 was settled on herself and her children. The trustees named in the settlement were Mr. Roberts and Mr. Lewis. The deed provided, that if any one or more of the trustees thereby, or to be thereafter appointed, or their respective executors or administrators should depart this life, or should wish to be discharged from, or should become incapable, or should decline to act in the trusts, then Danford and wife might appoint new trustees, to whom the trust property should be forthwith transferred or assigned, so as to vest it in the continuing and new trustees. This deed was not executed by Lewis. Mr. Danford, by indenture of even date, covenanted with the trustees that he would settle the 1000 on the trusts of the settlement when it was paid. On the 8th of February 1842 Mr. Noble, the father, died, arid on the 15th of July 1844 Mrs. Noble, the mother, died, and the money then became divisible. Under the trusts of the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Noble, the three daughters were entitled to the sum of 1000 each, and also to a share of the residue of the funds settled by the settlement of 1805. The other two daughters were married, and their shares having been settled on their marriage, Mr. Oughton and [473] Mr. Meymott, on the 20th of June...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welstead v Colvile
...; the daughter is to appoint the new trustee, and the surviving trustees are afterwards to convey the trust estate. In Noble v. Meymott (14 Beavan, 471), it was said that the appointment of new trustees was not complete until the trust property had been conveyed, but the Court, as to this p......
-
Kemp v Burn
...will not make a trustee pay costs unless for corrupt conduct or improper motives : Taylor v. Glanville (3 Mad. 176) Noble v. Meymott (14 Beav. 471, 480). A mere refusal to render accounts is no ground for visiting a trustee with costs: White v. Jackson (15 Beav. 191). This was not a. refusa......