Wilkins v Hogg
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 07 May 1861 |
Date | 07 May 1861 |
Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 66 E.R. 346
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Affirmed, 10 W. R. 47. Followed, Pass v. Dundas, 1881, 43 L. T. 665.
[116] wilkins v. hogg. May 7, 1861. [Affirmed, 10 W. E. 47. Followed, Pass v. Dundas, 1881, 43 L. T. 665.J Bill against two of three trustees to make good trust monies, which they had allowed their co-trustee to receive, dismissed with costs : the will having, besides the usual indemnity clause, provided " that any trustee who should pay to his co-trustee, or enable him to receive monies, for the general purposes of the will, should not be obliged to see to the due application thereof, or be responsible by express or implied notice of the misapplication." This bill was filed by the cesfui que trust under the will of Mrs. Lockyer against .3GIFF.117. WILKIFS V. HOGG 347 Charles Hogg and Mary Banister, praying that they might be decreed personally liable, and decreed to make good two sums of 2000 each, being the proceeds of certain policies in the bill mentioned. Isabella Lancaster Lockyer, by her will, appointed the Defendants, Charles Hogg, Mary Banister, widow, and Samuel Jackson Eeid, the executors and trustees of her said will, and she thereby directed and authorised ker said executors, within three months after her decease, to effect in their own names an insurance of 4000 on the life of Sophia H. Wilkins in some good and respectable office in London or "Westminster, and that they should stand possessed of and interested in the said policy, and the monies secured thereby, for the benefit of the Plaintiffs, the children of the said Sophia H. Wilkins, in manner therein mentioned. The indemnity clause in the will was as follows :-" And I declare that such trustee shall be answerable only for losses arising from his own defaults, and not for involuntary acts, or for the acts or defaults of his co-trustees or trustee ; and particularly that any trustee who shall pay over to his co-trustee, or shall do or concur in any act enabling his co-trustee to receive any monies for the general purposes of my will, or for any definite purpose authorised by my will, shall not be obliged to see to the due application thereof, nor shall such trustee be subsequently rendered responsible by an express notice or intimation of the actual misapplication of the same monies." The word " such," it was stated, was in the draft copy. The testatrix died on the 13th of November 1854 [117] Shortly after her decease the trustees and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Armitage v Nurse
...In my judgment it is without foundation. 35There can be no question of the clause being repugnant to the trust. In ( Wilkins v Hogg (1861) 31 L.J.Ch. 41 at p.42 Lord Westbury LC challenged counsel to cite a case where an indemnity clause protecting the trustee from his ordinary duty had be......
-
John P Greene and Others v Danny Coady and Others
...it. In my judgment it is without foundation. There can be no question of the clause being repugnant to the trust. In Wilkins v. Hogg (1861) 31 L.J.Ch. 41, 42 Lord Westbury L.C. challenged counsel to cite a case where an indemnity clause protecting the trustee from his ordinary duty had been......
-
Spread Trustee Company Ltd v Hutcheson and Others
...and we must consider it. In my judgment it is without foundation. There can be no question of the clause being repugnant to the trust. In Wilkins v Hogg (1861) 31 LJCh 41, 42 Lord Westbury LC challenged counsel to cite a case where an indemnity clause protecting the trustee from his ordina......
-
David Baird Macadam V. Morna Grandison
...Wills and Succession (3rd ed), p.1217, Wilson and Duncan, Trusts, Trustees and Executors (2nd ed), paras 28.36-28.37 and Wilkins v Hogg (1861) 31 LJ Ch 41, Lord Westbury at p.43 to vouch the proposition that a trustee can become liable for the acts of a co-trustee when he becomes aware of a......