Williams v Nixon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 1840 |
| Date | 05 May 1840 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1264
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 269. See Massey v. Moss, 1842, 1 Hare, 321.
[472] williams v. nixon. May 5, 1840. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 269. See Massey v. Moss, 1842, 1 Hare, 321.] Two executors were directed, after making some annual payments, to invest and accumulate the surplus. One of the executors received the dividends of stock for several years, and misapplied them; it did not appear that the other executor had any knowledge thereof. Held that the latter was not answerable for the breach of trust. Two executors sold out stock, and the produce was received by one: Held that the other was responsible for its misapplication, but was entitled to an enquiry, whether any part had been applied in discharge of claims against the testator. The official assignee of a defaulting trustee whose assets had been distributed held not entitled to costs. The testator by his will gave his residuary estate to the Defendants Nixon and Mills, in trust, to pay an annuity of £200 a year to his widow, annuities of £10 each to his three sisters, and an annuity of £500 a year to his son until he attained forty-five ; they were to invest and accumulate the remainder until the son attained forty-five, and then to pay him the income for life, with remainder in trust for the son's children. The will contained an indemnity clause, that the trustees and executors should not be answerable for one another, or for the defaults of the other, and should be accountable only for the monies which should actually come to their hands respectively. The testator died in 1825, and both his executors proved his will; his property principally consisted of money in the funds, which produced an income of nearly £1200 a year. Nixon left the management of the testator's affairs entirely to Mills, who received the dividends, paid the annuities, &c. ; but neglected to invest the surplus; in 1834 Mills became bankrupt, and was found a debtor to the estate in the sum of about £6099. It appeared, that in 1826 Nixon concurred with Mills in the sale of a sum of £450 3 per cents., the produce of which was retained by Mills. As to this Nixon said that the testator held a farm on lease, which it became desirable to give up, and that the stock in question had [473] been sold and applied in discharge of the claims of the landlord in surrendering the lease. 1BBAV.471 WILLIAMS V. NIXON 1265 The testator's son died in 1831, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkins v Hogg
...trust money, which was, however, actually received by one only, and lost, were held liable to make it good. [118] In Williams v. Nixon (2 Beav. 472), where two executors sold stock, but the produce was received by one only, and by him misapplied, the other was held liable. \Moyle v. Moyle (......
-
Candler v Tillett
...to misapply the assets, and with such knowledge takes no steps to prevent it, he is not answerable for the loss; Willia,m& v. Nixon (2 Beav. 472). Here, immediately on the discovery, Candler took active steps against his co-executor ; these he prosecuted with the greatest diligence and vigo......
-
Lowe v Shields
...D. 562. Langford v. Gascoyne 11 Ves. 333. Shields' EstateIR [1901] 1 I. R. 172. Trutch v. LamprellENR 20 Beav. 116. Williams v. NixonENR 2 Beav. 472. Executors — Liability for default of co-executor — Putting assets into sole control of co-executor. 320 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1902. Appeal. LOW......
-
Dix v Burford
...were required. Thirdly, the gift to them is as exemtors, and one executor is not liable for the defaults of another; Williams v. Nixon ('2 Beav. 472). Lastly, the cases do not apply, [412] for there the trustees acted in opposition to an express direction ; here they have merely complied wi......