Styles v Guy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Date | 01 January 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 1328
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 16 Sim. 230; 1 H. & Tw. 523; 19 L. J. Ch. 185; 14 Jur. 355.
styles v. guy. Nov. 11, 1848; Nov. 10, 1849. [S. C. 16 Sim. 230; 1 H. & Tw. 523; 19 L. J. Ch. 185; 14 Jur. 355.] Two of three executors, with the knowledge that there were unsettled accounts subsisting at the testator's death between the testator and their co-executor in respect of which they had reason to believe that the latter was considerably indebted to the estate, took no effectual steps to compel him to account and pay or secure the balance due for several years after the trustees' death, at the end of which he became bankrupt. The solvent executors, being unable to prove that an attempt to recover the money at an earlier period would have been fruitless, were decreed to make good the loss, as having been occasioned by their wilful neglect and default. It is the duty of executors, no less than of trustees, to keep a check upon each other's conduct, and an executor is equally chargeable with neglect in allowing a part of the estate to remain outstanding in an improper state of investment, whether the party in whose hands it is so outstanding be a co-executor or a stranger. This was an appeal from part of an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England, on exceptions and further directions, whereby the Appellants, who were two of the executors of a testator, were ordered to make good, with interest at 4 per cent, from the testator's death, a large sum of money which their co-executor, who had been agent to the testator, had retained in his hands for six years after the testator's death, and which had been eventually lost by his becoming bankrupt. [423] The Plaintiffs were a daughter of the testator, who was entitled for life, and her children, entitled in remainder to a share of his residuary estate. The suit was commenced in the Exchequer, and was heard before Lord Lyndhurst, C.B. (see 4 Y. & C. 572), who was of opinion that a pimd facie case of liability was established against the solvent executors, but at their request directed certain inquiries suggested by their answer. These inquiries, with the findings of the Master upon them, and the other facts and circumstances of the case, are sufficiently detailed for the purpose of this report in the Lord Chancellor's judgment. On the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Stuart, Mr. James Parker, and Mr, Heathfield appeared for the two solvent executors (the Appellants). Mr. Bethell, Mr. Eolt, and Mr. Pittman, for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Bevir, and Sir W. Riddell, for other parties in the same interest. Nov. 10, 1849. the lord chancellor [Cottenham]. The facts of this case, so far as necessary to be considered in deciding the question upon the appeal, are as follows:-The testator 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 agent in the management of his pecuniary affairs, much in the character of a banker. He [424] left large sums of money in his hands, not as incidental to his 1MAC. 60. 4M. STYLES V. GUT 1329 employment of a solicitor and agent, but upon loan at interest without security, and simply upon his notes or accountable receipts, the whole balance at the time of tho testator's death amounting, as the Master's report finds, to £12,981, 5s. 4d. The testator appointed this Anthony Guy and Richard Tuckey the younger, the testator's nephew, and Richard Tuckey, one of his sons, executors and trustees of his will. The will does not take any notice of the testator's connection with Anthony Guy, or of the debt due from him, but it directs the executors, aa soon as conveniently may be after his decease, to sell and convert into money all such parts of his property as should not consist of moneys, or securities for money, and to call for, receive, and get in all such part or parts thereof as consisted of book debts or securities for money not approved of by them; and, after directing them to retain £50 each aa a small compensation, for their trouble, and directing the payment of his debts, he gava 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 these six-sevenths he gave to each of his children and their families : (the particulars of which it is not material to state, aa infants were interested in all these shares, which, bo far as the capital is concerned, excludes all question as to acquiescence, an the part of the cestni que trusts of the capital, in the devastavit for which compensation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v Reynal
...following authorities, on the liabilities of [506] trustees; Holmes v. Bring (2 Cox, 1), Mucklow v. Fuller (Jacob, 198), Styles v. Gvy (1 Mac. & G. 422).] Mr. Osborne and Mr. Goldsmid appeared for the Defendants W. Fowler, C. Fowler and G. Webb. 356 FOWLER V. REYNAL 3 MAC, & 0. 807. Mr. Bac......
- Habsah bte Ngasirah and Another v Mohamed Zain bin Haji Ali and Others; Re Haji Ali bin Haji Mohamed Noor, deceased
-
The Official Manager of the Grand Trunk of Stafford and Peterborough Union Railway Company v Brodie
...the relation of trustees: Brice v. Stokes (11 Ves. 319), Caffrey v. Darby (G Ves. 496), Clough v. Bond (3 My. & Cr. 490), Styles v. Guy (1 Mac. & G-. 422), Sibsm v. Edge-worth (2 De G-. & S. 73), Carriers case (I Sim. (N. S.) 505, 509), Apperly v. Page (1 Ph. 779). , the vice-chancellor [Si......
-
Stiles v Guy
...English Reports Citation: 47 E.R. 1517 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY Stiles and Guy 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. ......