Williams v Allen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1863 |
| Date | 19 November 1863 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 55 E.R. 255
ROLLS COURT
See Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 297.
[650] williams v. allen (No. 2). June 11, 1863. [See Dmudeswell v. Dowdeswell, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 297.] A trustee has a primary charge (in priority of the general creditors) to be recouped, out of the life-estate of a deceased tenant for life, the amount of trust moneys wrongfully received by him and for the costs of suit. Moneys are never paid out of Court to an administrator ad lite/in. Subject to their life-estates and to trusts for their children, which failed, the ultimate limitation of the funds in the marriage settlement of Mr. and Mrs. Norman, dated in 1831, waa to her next of kin. She died in 1858, and her husband died in 1860, and thereupon this limitation took effect. The suit waa instituted in April 1860 by the next of kin of Mrs. Norman, seeking to make Mr. Allen, the trustee of her settlement, liable for 1368 New 3 per cents, and other trust funds which were not forthcoming. The trustee said that the produce of the 3 per cents, had been received by Mr. and Mrs. Norman, the tenants for life, and they being dead, he required their legal personal representatives to be made parties. The Master of the Rolls, at the hearing, held (29 Beav. 292) that they were necessary parties, and thereupon the Plaintiff procured administration ad tttem only to be granted, and made such administrators Defendants to the bill. The Master of the Rolls, on the 10th of February 1862, held this to be insufficient; but the Lords Justices, on the 30th of April 1862, were of a different opinion. By the decree, made on the 6th of June 1862, it was declared that Mr. Allen was liable to make good the 1368 3 per cents, and the dividends since the death of Mr. Norman in 1860, and he was ordered to pay so much of the costs as had been rendered necessary in [651] recovering this sum. An inquiry was, however, at his instance, directed, as to whom and in what manner he had disposed of the moneys arising from that fund. The Chief Clerk found that the fund had been sold out in 1833 and 1834, and that the produce had been paid to Mrs. Norman, under the circumstances stated in the answer of Mr. Allen. In taking the accounts, it appeared; that the arrears of the income of the trust funds which had arisen in the lifetime of Mr. and Mrs. Norman was far more than sufficient to replace the amount for which Mr. Allen was liable, for the income had not, for a long period...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v Hodgens
...Beav. 372. Whiteaves v. Melrill 5 W. R. 576. Goods of SomersetELR L. R. 1 P. & D. 350. Davis v. ChanterENR 2 Ph. 545. Williams v. AllenENR 32 Beav. 650. The Attorney-General v. CornthwaiteENR 2 cox, 44. Haycock v. HaycockENR 2 Ch. Cas. 124. Faulkner v. DanielENR 3 Hare, 199. Hill v. Binney ......