Williams v Allen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1862 |
| Date | 30 April 1862 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 45 E.R. 1110
BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES.
S. C. 29 Beav. 292; 30 L. J. Ch. 810; 3 L. T. 649; 9 W. R. 227; 6 L. T. 313; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 276; 31 L. J. Ch. 550; 10 W. R. 261, 512; 32 Beav. 650. See Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 297.
[71] williams v. allen. Before the Lords Justices. April 30, 1862. [S. C. 29 Beav. 292; 30 L. J. Ch. 810; 3 L. T. 649; 9 W. ft. 227; 6 L. T. 313; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 276; 31 L. J. Ch. 550; 10 W. R. 261, 512; 32 Beav. 650. See Dowdeswell v. Dmodeawell, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 297.] In a suit instituted by cestuis que trust to administer the trusts of a settlement and make the trustee liable for the loss of part of the fund, the trustee alleged by his answer that a deceased tenant for life had received the lost monies, and that his personal representatives were necessary parties. The Plaintiffs thereupon amended their bill by making an administrator ad litem of the tenant for life a party. Held, that the estate of the tenant for life was sufficiently represented, and that it was not necessary to have a general administrator before the Court. Whether it was necessary that any representative of the tenant for life should be a a party to the suit, gucere. This was a motion to discharge an order of the Master of the Rolls directing a motion for decree to stand over, with liberty to the Plaintiffs to amend by adding parties, and ordering the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the day. The bill was filed to administer the trusts of a settlement made on the marriage of Mr. and Mrs Norman; Mr. and Mrs. Norman had died, and there had been no issue of the marriage, and upon the death of the survivor the ultimate trust of the settlement in favour of the wife's next of kin took effect. The next of kin then filed this bill, the substantial object of which was to compel the trustee, Edward Allen, to replace a portion [72] of the trust fund which had been improperly dealt with, and was not forthcoming. The bill, in the first place, was filed against Allen alone. He by his answer set up the case that the missing portion of the fund was disposed of by him at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Norman, and the proceeds received by them. The cause came on upon motion for decree on the 15th of January 1861, and the Master of the Rolls decided that personal representatives of Mr. and Mrs. Norman were necessary parties, and ordered the motion to stand over with liberty to amend by adding parties, and ordered the Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the day (29 Beav. 292). It was alleged by Allen that there was a large arrear of unreceived dividends at the Bank of England which had accrued during the tenancies for life. The Plaintiffs procured a grant to W. C. Greenop of letters of administration to the estates of Mr. and Mrs. Norman limited to the purposes of the suit, " and to attend, supply, substantiate and confirm the proceedings already had or that shall or may be had in the aforesaid cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v Allen
...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 administrat......
-
Burrowes v O'Brien
...I shall now make, and that no notice has been served for liberty to amend the petition; and I shall dismiss the petition with costs.* (a) 29 Beav. 292. (b) 5 Beav. 319 (c) 5 Beav. 293. (d) 6 D. M. & G. 609. (e) 21 Beav. 52. (f) 9 Ir. Ch. Rep. 479; S. C., on appeal, 10 Ir. Ch. Rep. 287. (g) ......