Robinson v Pett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1734 |
| Date | 01 January 1734 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 1049
LORD CHANCELLOR TALBOT.
See S. C. 2 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 606. Referred to, In re Barber, Burgess v. Vinicome, 1886, 34 Ch. D. 83.
3 P. WMS. 249. ROBINSON V. PETT 1049 [249] Case 60- robinson v. pett. [1734.] [See S. C. 2 Wh. & T. L. C. (7th ed.) 606. Referred to, In re Barber, Burgess v. Vinicome, ' 1886, 34 Ch. D. 83.] On an Appeal from a Decree at the Rolls. Lord Chancellor Talbot. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 454, pi. 10. The court never allows an executor or trustee for his time and trouble, especially where there is an express legacy for his pains, &c., neither will it alter the case, that the executor renounces, and yet is assisting to the executorship; nor even though it appears, that the executor has deserved more, and benefited the trust, to the prejudice of his own affairs. The question'was, whether an executor that had renounced, but had yet been assisting in the trust, according to the request of the testator, should have any additional consideration, when he Jiad an express legacy for such his assistance 1 Robert Pett, a considerable draper and mercer at Aspallstoneham, in Suffolk, made his will in October, 1710, whereby he devised the surplus of his real and personal estate to his grandchildren, and appointed the defendant Pett, who had been first his servant, and afterwards his journeyman, together with one Larkin, executors, giving to each of his executors 100 for their trouble about the execution of their trust, and directing, that if the defendant Larkin should refuse the executorship, he should lose his legacy ; but if the defendant Pett should refuse to take on him the executorship, yet that he should have this 100 paid him, provided he would be aiding and assisting in the management and execution of the trust. Larkin only proved the will, and the defendant Pett renounced the executorship. On a bill brought by the plaintiffs, the grandchildren, against the executors, for an account of the personal estate, the defendant Pett was allowed his legacy 100 : but he likewise insisted to have 400 more for his extraordinary [250] pains, trouble, and expense of time in and about the affairs of the testator, particularly for having made up some very intricate accounts, and got in some desperate debts; and there was some proof, that the defendant Pett had greatly benefited the testator's estate, and prejudiced his own (he himself being a mercer), and that he had neglected his own trade, and lost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Norfolk's (Duke of) Settlement Trusts
...That depends, in the main, upon authority. An examination of a number of decisions is, therefore, necessary. 33 I start with Robinson v. Pett, 2 P. Wms. 249, which was decided in 1734 by Lord Chancellor Talbot. In that case the issue was whether "an executor who had renounced but had yet be......
- Khaw Cheng Bok and Others v Khaw Cheng Poon and Others
-
Eaton v LDC Finance Ltd ((in Receivership))
...2002) at [8–250]. 38 J McGhee QC (ed) Snell's Equity (32nd ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2010) at 195. 39 Citing Robinson v Pett (1734) 3 P.Wms. 249 (24 E.R. at 40 Royal Bank of Canada v Sparrow Electric [1997] 1 SCR 411; Bank of Montreal v Innovation Credit Union [2010] 3 SCR 3; Royal Bank o......
- Wedderburn v Wedderburn