The Governesses' Benevolent Institution v Rusbridger
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1854 |
| Date | 28 January 1854 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 184
ROLLS COURT.
See Richardson v. Rusbridger, 1855, 20 Beav. 136.
184 governesses' benevolent institution v. kusbridger w beav.t [467] the governesses' benevolent institution v. rusbridger. Jan. 28, 1854. [See Richardson v. Eusbridyer, 1855, 20 Beav. 136.] Bight of a party, entitled contingently in remainder, to have the trust fund brought into Court at the hearing, though there be no imputation against the trustees. Executors and trustees having appropriated a legacy, and divided the residue: Held, that the costs of a auit to secure the particular legacy must be paid thereout. The testator bequeathed to his four trustees and executors 12,000 3 per cents., upon certain trusts for his daughter, her husband and children successively; but in case no child should attain twenty-one, upon trust for the Governesses' Benevolent Institution. He gave many other legacies in trust. The four executors and trustees discharged all claims upon the estate, and set apart a sum of 87,000 3 per cents, to answer the above and eight other legacies given by the testator's will, and this sum was still standing in their names. They had paid over the residue to the residuary legatees. Mrs. Eichardson was still living, but had no issue. The Plaintiffs applied to the trustees to bring the legacy into Court, under the Trustee Act; but the trustees re-[468]-plied, "that they had no desire to avail themselves of the Trustee Act, or in any way to relieve themselves from the discharge of their duties, and which they personally promised the testator to fulfil." The Plaintiffs, thereupon, filed this claim, to have the legacy of 12,000 stock appropriated and secured. Mr. C. C. Barber asked that the legacy might, for the better protection of the Plaintiffs, be transferred into Court, and that the Defendants, out of the assets, might pay the costs of suit. He argued that this particular legacy ought to be set apart and appropriated, distinct from the other legacies, and that as the Bank would not allow funds standing in the same names to be kept separate, the only way was to pay it into Court to a separate account. Mr. Selwyn, contrk, objected to the fund being brought into Court, no imputation being made on the trustees, or misconduct, on their part, alleged. He cited Ross v. Ross (12 Beav. 89), where it was held, that although a party, having a contingent interest in a trust fund, may, in a proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v Angel
...v. Hodson (3 P. Wms. 300); Wheeler v. Warner (1 Sim. & St. 304); Clarke v. Berkeley (2 Vern. 720); Governesses' Institution v. Rusbridger (18 Beav. 467); Flight v. Cook (2 Yes. sen. 619); Randal v. Payne (1 Bro. 0, C. 55); Roberts v. Roberts (2 Phil. 534); Andrew v. Wrigley (4 Bro. C. C. 12......
-
Grant v Grant
...cited M'Lean v. Longlands (5 Ves. 71); Walter v. Hodge (2 Swan. 92); and as to costs, Governesses' Benevolent Institution v. Rusbridger (18 Beav. 467). July 10. the master of the rolls [Sir John Romillyl In this case, after reading the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the Plaint......
-
Richardson v Rusbridger
...of costs recouped out of the residue. It was dismissed with costs. In the case of the Governesses' Benevolent Institution v. Eusltridger (18 Beav. 467), the executors and trustees alone were parties, and Mrs. Richardson, the tenant for life of the 12,000, now alleged that she had no notice ......