Sugden v Crossland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 1856 |
| Date | 18 February 1856 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 65 E.R. 620
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 563; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 318; 4 W. R. 343.
[192] sugden v. crossland. Feb. 18, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ch. 563; 2 Jur. (N. S.) 318; 4 W. E, 343.} 1. A testator appointed two trustees and executors of his will, but by a codicil he excluded them and appointed two other persons. One of these retired in con sideration of 75, paid to him by one of the excluded trustees, and executed a deed appointing the excluded trustee to act as trustee in his room. The Court directed the new trustee to be removed, and the deed to be cancelled, declared the conveyance to be void and directed the 75 to form part of the assets. 2. Profit derived by a trustee, either from the trust property or from his office of trustee, belongs to the cestui que trust. William Sugden, of Leeds, by his will, made in 1852, after giving certain legacies, devised and bequeathed his real and personal estate to the se of Joseph Sugden and William Crossland, upon certain trusts for his infant son, with the ordinary power to the trustees or trustee for the time being to appoint new trustees or a new trustee in the place of any trustee or trustees dying or desiring to be discharged, or refusing or becoming incapable of acting. The testator, by a codicil to his will, dated the 17th of November 1852, revoked the appointment of Joseph Sugden and William Crossland, and substituted Jervis Horsfield and Thomas Brown as his executors and trustees. He died in November 1853, and his will and codicil were proved by Horsfield and Brown shortly afterwards. William Crossland subsequently entered into an agreement with Horsfield that he should retire from the trust and cause Crossland to be appointed; in consideration of which Crossland gave Horsfield the sum of 75. The arrangement was subsequently attempted to be carried into effect by an indenture, bearing date the 28th of January 1854, wherein it was recited that Horsfield being desirous of withdrawing; 3 SM. & GIFF. 193. HAWKER V. HALLEWELL 621 from the trust Grassland was appointed; but it contained no statement of the arrangement, or of the 75 paid by Grassland to the retiring trustee. The present bill was filed against Horsfield and the surviving trustees for the administration of the testator's estate, and asked that Crossland might be removed from the trust, and another trustee appoipted; and that the sum of 75 paid to Horsfield might be treated as a part [193]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd
...for the beneficiary (as in In re Cape Breton Company (1885) 29 Ch D 795). 59 Next, there is a first instance decision of Stuart V-C, Sugden v Crossland (1856) 2 Sm & G 192, whose reasoning proceeded on the basis that there was no "distinction between a profit which a trustee takes out of a ......
-
The Children's Investment Fund Foundation (UK) v HM Attorney General and Others
...of which any benefit received had to be repaid to the fund (see In re Skeats' Settlement (1889) 42 Ch. Div. 522 per Kay J at 526, and Sugden v. Crossland (1856) 3 Sm. & Giff. 191 per Sir John Stuart VC at 194). Mr Taube also submitted that cases such as Re Clore's Settlement Trusts [1966] ......
-
Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd
...is "liable to account" for an unauthorised profit; and also said (p. 149) that in Keech v Sandford the trustee was "accountable". 32 In Sugden v Crossland (1856) 2 Sm & G 192 a testator appointed Crossland as one of his executors. By a codicil he revoked that appointment and appointed Horsf......
-
Sumitomo Bank Ltd v Kartika Ratna Thahir and Others and another matter
...(refd) Siskina, The [1979] AC 210 (refd) Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460 (refd) Sugden v Crossland (1856) 3 Sm & G 192; 65 ER 620 (refd) T Mahesan s/o Thambiah v Malaysia Government Officers' Co-operative Housing Society Ltd [1979] AC 374 (folld) Tan Chye Chew v Eastern ......