Wroughton v Colquhoun
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1847 |
| Date | 29 July 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 1103
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 70; 11 Jur. 536. Followed, Daniell v. Daniell, 3 De G. & Sm. 342; Gratrix v. Chambers, 1860, 2 Giff. 321; Todd v. Bielby, 1859, 27 Beav. 356; In re Sinclair [1897], 1 Ch. 925.
[357] wroughton v. colquhoun. July 19, 29,184V. [S. C. 16 L. J. Ch. 70; 11 Jur. 536. Followed, Daniell v. Darnell, 3 ^e G. & Sm. 342 : Gratrix v. Chambers, 1860, 2 Giff. 321; Todd v. Bielby, 1859, 27 Beav. 356; In re Sinclair '[1897], 1 Ch. 925.] Where a testator's effects are insufficient to satisfy an annuity bequeathed by the will and the pecuniary legacies: Held, that the annuity ought to be valued, and that the annuitant was entitled at once to the amount of the valuation, subject to an abatement in proportion to the abatement of the pecuniary legacies; and that, although the annuitant died before the payment of the annuity in full would have equalled the abated amount of the valuation, the other legatees would have no claim to the surplus of that amount. In a suit instituted by a residuary legatee the assets proved insufficient for the payment of the expenses and the general legacies. Held, that the Plaintiff was not entitled to his costs as between solicitor and client, except so far as the general estate- had been increased by the proceeding. The costsancurred by a legatee, who has instituted an administration suit, in attending before the Master by counsel in support of his state of facts: Held, not to be within the 120th Order of May 1845, as incurred upon a question relating to title. This case, which is reported ante, p. 36, now came on again upon further directions. The suit was instituted by the residuary legatee for the general administration of the estate. It appeared that the assets were insufficient for the payment in full of the pecuniary legacies and annuity; and the first question discussed was as to the payment of the costs of the Plaintiff. Mr. C. P. Cooper and Mr. Briggs, for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is entitled to have his costs out of the estate, to be taxed as between solicitor and client, in analogy to the rule which has been adopted in the case of an administration bill filed by a simple contract creditor, where the assets are only sufficient to pay the specialty debts: Tootal v. Spicer (4 Sim. 510; and see Brodie v. Bolton, 3 Myl. & K. 168; and LarUns v. Paxton, 2 Id. 32). The reason on which that rule is founded, viz., that the Plaintiff's proceeding has benefited other parties exclusively, and that he ought not to be a loser f y it, applies equally in this case, where the Plaintiff, as it turns out, will receive nothing; and your Honor has in fact already so decided in Burkitt v. Hansom (2 Coll. 536). If, however, the Court thought that it could not direct the general costs of the Plaintiff to be paid as between solicitor and client, at all events the Plaintiff ought to be allowed the expense of attending by counsel in the Master's...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
- Chesterman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
- Re Nicholson, Chadwyck-Healey v Crawford
- Hill v Wilson
-
Gratrix v Chambers
... ... Colquhoun (1 De G-. & Sm. 357), but was entitled to have the accruing payments of the annuity made good, if necessary, out of the corpus, as in Wright v ... and 20 issuing out of the shares of the Halls and Roberts, and the amount of such valuation paid to him out of the corpus of their shares, Wroughton v. Colquhoun (1 De G-. & S. 357), or else to payment of the annuities of 20 and 20 out of the income of those shares; and so far as the [324] income ... ...