Stiles v Guy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1849 |
| Date | 12 November 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 1517
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 1 Mac. & G. 422; 41 E. R. 1328.
[523] stiles v. guy. Nov. 10, 11, 1848; Nov. 12, 1849. [S. C. 1 Mac. & G. 422 ; 41 E. E. 1328.] A person who, at the death of a testator, had part of the testator's estate in. his hands, and who was appointed one of his executors, was allowed by the co-executors to retain the monies in his hands, and afterward became bankrupt. The eo-executors were held liable to make good the loss to the testator's estate. The liability of executors to make good a loss is regulated by the same principles, whether the loss arises from their omitting to call in a debt due to the testator's estate, or from their allowing a balance to remain in the hands of a co-executor. An executor is not protected merely by passiveness from liability on account of a devastavit committed by his co-executor; but it is the duty of co-executors to watch over, and, if necessary, to correct the conduct of each other. The chief question on this appeal was, whether two of the executors under the will of John Tuckey were liable to make good to the estate of their testator, a large sum of money which, at the time of the testator's death, was in the hands of a third party, who was also an executor, and who had been allowed to retain the money in his hands for six years, when he became bankrupt, and the money was consequently lost to the testator's estate. By the decree of the Vice-Chancellor of England, which is reported in 16 Sim. 230, the claim against the two executors was sustained, and the money was ordered to be paid into Court, together with interest at 4 per cent, from the time of the testator's death. The will and the circumstances of the case, and also the judgment of Lord Lyndhurst, before whom the cause was originally heard, in December 1832, in the Court of Exchequer, are stated in 4 Y. & C. App. 571. Mr. Stuart, Mr. James Parker, and Mr. Heathfield appeared in support of the appeal; and Mr. Bethell, Mr. Eolt, Mr. Pitman, Mr. Bevir, and Sir Walter Eiddell for other parties. Nov. 12, 1849. the lord chancellor. The testator, in this case, had been accustomed for many years, and up to the time of his death, to employ Anthony Guy, a solicitor, not only in his professional capacity, but as [524] agent in the management of his pecuniary affairs, much in the character of a banker, He left large sums of money in his hands, not as incidental to his employment as a solicitor and agent, but upon loan, at interest, without security, and simply upon his notes or accountable receipts ; and the whole balance, at the time of the testator's death, amounted, as the Master's report finds, to 12,981, 5s. 4d. The testator appointed this Anthony Guy, Richard Tuckey the younger, the testator's nephew, and Eichard Tuckey, one of his sons, executors and trustees of his 1518 STILES V. GUY 1 H. ft TW. 823. will. The will does not take any notice of the connexion with Anthony Guy, or of the debt due from him ; but it directs the executors, as soon as conveniently may be after the testator's decease, to sell and convert into money all such parts of his property as should not consist of monies or securities for money, and to call for, receive, and get in all such part or parts thereof as should consist of book debts, or securities for money not approved of by them; and after directing them to retain 50 each, as a small compensation for their trouble, and directing the payment of his debts, he gave one-seventh part of the residue to his son Richard, and directed his executors to place out and invest the remaining six-sevenths in or upon any of the Parliamentary stocks or funds, or on real securities, in England; and one of those six-sevenths he gave to each of his children and their families. The particulars of those gifts are not material, inasmuch as infants are interested in all those shares; and that circumstance, so far as the capital is concerned, excludes all question as to acquiescence on the part of the cestuis que trust of the capital, in the devastavit for which compensation is sought in this suit. He directed that all advances made by him to any of his children should be taken as part of their shares. The testator died in September 1823. All the three exe-[625]-cutors proved, but Anthony Guy appears to have principally acted in the trusts of the will. The correspondence shews, that no one of the family interested under the will, nor either of the other executors, was acquainted with the state of Anthony Guy's account with the testator's estate; but, that he had large funds belonging to that estate in his hands, must have been known-several of the tenants for life applying to him for and receiving from him payments on account of what was coming to them, and he having, in December 1825, paid Richard Tuckey, the son, 3200. The family soon became impatient at their not being able to ascertain the state of the testator's property, but do not appear to have ascertained any suspicion of the solvency of Anthony Guy. The letters shew, that Richard Tuckey the son, so early as the 8th of December 1824, and Richard Tuckey the younger, so early as llth January 1825, applied to Anthony Guy, and pressed him for a settlement of the testator's affairs. Applications for this purpose were often repeated by the co-executors, and by different members of the family, but were always evaded by Anthony Guy, until the original bill in these causes was filed in March 1829, by Joanna Stiles, one of the testator's daughters, and her children. On the 23d of July...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratcliffe v Winch
...They cited Tebbs v. Carpenter (1 Madd. 290); Moyk v. Moyle (2 Russ. & M. 710); dough v. Band (3 Myl. & Or. 490); Stiles v. Guy (16 Sim. 230; S. C. 4 Y. & Coll. (Excb.) 571; 1 Macn. & Gor. 422 ; 1 Hall & Tw. 523). Mr. Eoupell and Mr. Speed, contra, insisted that the executrix who knew that h......
-
Egbert v Butter
...the assets without making provision for the Plaintiffs' annuities, are personally responsible; Styles v. Guy (1 Mac. & Gor. 422, and 1 Hall & Twells, 523). Mr. Lloyd and Mr. F. White, for Butter and Oxenham. These Defendants are only liable for what they have received, for executors are not......
-
Connolly v Connolly
...of L. Cas. 240. Phillips v. Phillips 2 Free. 12. Tebbs v. CarpenterUNK 1 Mad. 298. Moyle v. MoyleENR 2 Russ. & M. 710. Stiles v. GreyENR 16 Sim. 230. Clerk v. ClerkENR 2 Vern. 323. Philips v. Brydges 3 Ves. 120. Robinson v. ComynsENR Cas. temp. Talbot 164; S. C., 1 Atk. 473. Williams v. Hen......
-
John McDonnel, - Appellant; Henry White (now Lord Annaly), - Respondent
...to enforce payment when it might have been enforced; the trustee is therefore liable, Tebbs v. Carpenter (1 Madd. 290). In Stiles v. Guy (16 Sim. 230), [576] where two executors were sought to be charged with a debt due to the testator from their brother executor against whom they had never......
-
AN ACCOUNT OF ACCOUNTS
...Causes”(2013) 129 LQR 39 at 58 ff. 104 [1995] HCA 18. 105 Warman International Ltd v Dwyer [1995] HCA 18 at [29]. 106Stiles v Guy(1848) 16 Sim 230 at 232; (1848) 60 ER 861 at 862; In re Brogden(1888) 38 Ch D 546 at 567, applying Lord Cottenham LC in Clough v Bond(1838) 3 My and Cr 490; In r......