Sinclair v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 March 1855 |
| Date | 20 March 1855 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 627
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 537; 1 Jur. (N. S.), 967. See Ex parte Taylor, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 301.
[324] sinclair v. wilson. March 17, 19, 20, 1855. [S. C. 24 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 1 Jur. (X. S.), 967. See Exparte Taylor, 1886, 18 q. B. D. 301.] A trustee, with the consent of his cestui que trust, pledged Madras Government notes, held by him in trust, for the benefit of a firm of which he was partner. The notes were afterwards redeemed and delivered to the firm. Subsequently the firm, without the consent of the cestui que trust, pledged them for a similar purpose. The firm being insolvent and bankruptcy imminent, the trustee redeemed the notes with partnership assets, indorsed them to himself personally, and replaced them in hia private chest. The firm became bankrupt. Held, first, that the notes were not in the order and disposition of the firm; and, secondly, that there was no fraudulent preference. By a settlement, made in 1836, upon the marriage of Joseph Barrow, a merchant 628 SINCLAIR V. WILSON 20BEAV.S2B. in Madras, and the Plaintiff, Matilda Charlotte Sinclair, 50,000 sicca rupees, secured to trustees by the bond of Mr. Barrow, were settled upon trust for the Plaintiff for life, with remainder to Mr. Barrow for life; and after their decease, in the event of there being no children (which happened), upon trusts for Mr. Barrow. The trust moneys might, amongst other securities, be invested on " Government loans in India." In 1842 Mr. Barrow died, and his wife was left executrix and sole residuary-legatee. At this time Mr. Wilson, a person residing at Madras, and Mr. Marriott, who was resident in England, were the trustees of the settlement, and the bond remained unpaid. Part of the assets of Mr. Barrow being realized, was handed over to Mr. Wilson, the trustee, in discharge of the bond, and was by him, in June 1843, invested in the purchase of Madras Government notes, which, with a subsequent similar purchase, amounted to 26,700 sicca rupees, and notice of the purchase was given to the Plaintiff. On the 4th of January 1845 Wilson, acting on behalf of himself and his co-partners in business (trading under the firm of Barrow & Co.), requested the Plaintiff to [325] accommodate the firm with the loan of these notes for a short time, in order to deposit them with the "Bank of Madras," for a limited period, as security for advances then required by them. The Plaintiff consented, and Wilson indorsed the notes to the firm of Barrow & Co., and the firm, on the same day, deposited them with the bank. In March 1846 the Plaintiff left India and never returned; in July 1848 she married Mr. Sinclair, and she was paid interest on the notes down to December 1848. In 1846 the firm of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe), Lomas v Rab Market Cycles (Master) Fund Ltd)
...distinction between a creditor and a beneficiary then Mr Snowden relies, by way of example, on the decision of Sir John Romilly MR in Sinclair v Wilson (1855) 20 Beav. 324 that the restoration of trust property from the estate of a bankrupt to a beneficiary did not amount to a fraudulent pr......
-
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) ((in Administration)) (No 2)
...between a creditor and a beneficiary then Mr Snowden relies, by way of example, on the decision of Romilly MR in Sinclair v Wilson (1855) 20 Beav 324 that the restoration of trust property from the estate of a bankrupt to a beneficiary did not amount to a fraudulent preference in favour of ......
-
Independent Trustee Company Ltd v Registrar of Companies
...LTD v BAXTER & PARSONS UNREP MURPHY 21.7.1995 1995/6/1869 GOODE PRINCIPLES OF CORPORATE INSOLVENCY LAW 3ED 2005 PARA 6.35 SINCLAIR v WILSON 52 ER 627 1855 20 BEAV 324 BARCLAYS BANK LTD v QUISTCLOSE INVESTMENTS LTD 1970 AC 567 1968 3 WLR 1097 1968 3 AER 651 9 LDAB 105 CARRERAS ROTHMANS LTD v......