Wilkinson v Parry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1828 |
| Date | 05 February 1828 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 38 E.R. 808
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
808 WILKINSON V. PARRY 4 BUSS. 272. [272] wilkinson v. parry. Rolls. Feb. 5, 1828. Where a settlement requires that a retiring trustee should assign the trust property to the continuing trustee, and that a new trustee should be chosen in the place of the retiring trustee, and there is no power to appoint a sole trustee ; then, if a retiring trustee assign tiie trust property to the continuing trustee alone, and he, in abuse of his trust, dispose of it, the retiring trustee is answerable. In this case, upon the marriage of one of the Plaintiffs with her late husband, a settlement was made of a sum of 1000, which was to be invested in stock in the names of two trustees therein described. The dividends of the stock were to be paid to the intended wife for her separate use, with remainder to the children of the marriage equally, as they attained their respective ages of twenty-one. The settlement contained a power to the wife, during her life, and after her death, to the guardians of the children, to appoint a new trustee in the place of any trustee who should die or desire to retire from the trust; and in case any trustee should decline the trust, the settlement directed that such retiring trustee should assign the trust property to the new trustee so to be appointed in his place, and the continuing trustee. In 1820, the Defendants, Nicholson and Parry, were the actual trustees, duly appointed according to the power in the settlement; and the trust stock, which amounted to the sum of 1358, 10s., three per cents., stood in their names. In 1825, the Defendant Nicholson became desirous of retiring from the trust ; and a person of the name of Sherwin was appointed in his place. Sherwin accepted the trust by signing the deed of appointment; but before he had acted in the trust, he become desirous to retire from it; and a deed, appointing Parry to be the sole trustee, was prepared, to which the wife and Sherwin were made parties, but which was not executed by Sherwin. After the execution of this deed, the Defendant Nicholson trans-[273]-ferred the trust stock into the name of Parry alone. The Defendant Parry subsequently sold out the trust stock at the request of the wife and three of the children of the marriage, who had attained the age of twenty-one ; and a deed was executed by these three children, the husband being then dead, for the indemnity of Parry in respect of the sale...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case v James
...it was a breach of trust in the [516] Plaintiff to transfer the Turnley funds into the name of one of two trustees; Wilkinson v. Parry (4 Russ. 272); but the Defendants cannot avail themselves of that wrongful act. The circumstances of the case put the Defendants on inquiry, and they are bo......
-
Anderson v Wallis
...been taken by demurrer or answer, so as to enable the plaintiffs to amend their bill: Ruffety v. King (1 Keen, 601), Wilkinson v. Parry (4 Russ. 272), [342] Lambert v. Hukhinson (1 Beav. 277), Mortimer v. West (3 Russ. 370), Story v. Johnsen (ante, vol. 2, p &91, 598). The same has been hel......
-
Re the Y Trust NO. 1
...to. (15) Nwakobi v. Nzekwu, [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1019, followed. (16) Weld v. Petre, [1929] 1 Ch. 33, followed. (17) Wilkinson v. ParryENR(1828), 4 Russ. 272; 38 E.R. 808, referred to. Legislation construed: Trusts Law (2011 Revision), s.8(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out a......
-
Davies v Quarterman
...in which the very point was necessarily before the Court. I proceed to advert to those cases. The first of them is Wilkinson v. Parry (4 Russ. 272), in which the very distinction on which I now propose to act seems to have been taken by Sir John Leach. For there, the objection as to the mis......