Royds v Royds
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1851 |
| Date | 09 May 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 207
ROLLS COURT
[54] royds v. royds. May 9, 1851. Trustees had lent money on a technically insufficient security. In the Master's office, they entered into evidence to prove its sufficiency, but failed ; and they afterwards presented a petition for calling in and investing the money. This was done, and no loss occurred. Held, that the trustees were entitled to their costs of both proceedings. A bill was filed against trustees for securing a trust fund, which, in 1844, had been lent out on mortgage, By the decree, it was referred to the Master to enquire whether the property was a sufficient security for the £8000. The trustees entered into evidence to prove the adequacy of the security. The Master found that it was riot a sufficient security, and he came to that conclusion, not upon the actual value of the property, which was ample, but because it consisted partly of manufacturing premises and machinery. The trustees afterwards presented s. petition for liberty to receive the money and pay it into Court, which they accordingly did. The cause coming on, [55] Mr. Roupell and Mr. Rogers insisted that the trustees ought to pay the costs of the petition and of the evidence, which had turned out to be useless. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romilly]. I will not trouble the other side, for I think that this is not a case for making the trustees pay the costs. They seem to have committed a breach of trust; and no doubt, if the property had proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Fouche v the Superannuation Fund Board
-
Fitzgerald v Fitzgerald
...Moll. 347. Fitzgerald v. Pringle 2 Moll. 534. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 beav. 336. Bate v. HooperENR 5 De G., M. & G. 338. Royds v. RoydsENR 14 Beav. 54. Fitzgerald v. O'Flaherty 1 Moll. 347. Fitzgerald v. Pringle 2 Moll. 534. Byrne v. NorcottENR 13 Beav. 336. Royds v. RoydsENR 14 Beav. 54. Ba......